19 March 2024, Tuesday, 12:49
Support
the website
Sim Sim,
Charter 97!
Categories

Konstantin Hryshchenko: For ours and your freedom!

Konstantin Hryshchenko: For ours and your freedom!

Belarus and Ukraine will live according to European standards inevitably.

A former Vice Premier and a former Foreign Affairs Minister of Ukraine Konstantin Hryshchenko in an interview to the editor-in-chief of charter97.org website Natallya Radzina told about the last days of Viktor Yanukovych’s rule, why the former Ukrainian president refused to sign the Association Agreement, and how the military intervention of Russia should be confronted today.

- Mr Hryshchenko, you have always been a firm advocate of European integration of Ukraine, you became one of the initiators of signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. A few months before the Agreement signing, in December 2012, you had to leave the position of the Foreign Minister. If you have stayed in this position, could the events in Ukraine develop in other way? Or was everything predetermined?

- In the foreign policy not everything and not always depends on the Foreign Minister. His task is to suggest, insist, push for something, but the decision is taken by the person who is enabled for that on behalf of the state. In the case of Ukraine, they are the President and the Supreme Rada. It is clear that when the head of the state starts to change the external policies course, he naturally has a desire to change the Foreign Minister as well.

Until 2013 both the regime and the opposition could find understanding about the issue that our future is in Europe. If we had divergence of views, they related to when and in which sequence this aim should be reached. And this divergence of views was insignificant.

The first signals that the priority of the European integration raise doubts of the president Yanukovych, became obvious back in the beginning of 2013, when Ukraine played a very passive role during its presidency at the OSCE. We didn’t use that unique chance to reinforce our positions in the direction of European integration.

- What share had the issue of Yulia Tymoshenko’s release in the development of events? This issue had been constantly brought up by leading politicians of the West.

- It was obvious almost to everyone, that first of all the key parameters of the Association Agreement were to be agreed upon, including the free trade zone provisions. We did that. It seems that after that everything was ready for signing the document, which is essential for the future of our country.

The issue of Tymoshenko’s release became a psychological barrier for Yanukovych, which could not be cleared by him. And I do not have rational explanation of his tough stubbornness and antagonism to any advice from Western partners and those who had been trying to persuade him within the establishment.

- Russia started to buy the regime of Yanukovych actively, while Europe was rather passive.

- The issue is not about passivity of Europe. It is rather a consequence, than a reason. Europe proved to be unable to think strategically. At least then. I was constantly trying to persuade my colleagues in the West: the Association Agreement was needed not so by Yanukovych, but by the nation of Ukraine and Europe itself. The construction of the united Europe could not be finished without our country.

I was trying to convince my colleagues when I was an ambassador to Washington, and when I became the head of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine for the first time. And also then, when we had been working on the Association Agreement. Neither me nor my colleagues, who had been trying to speed up the day of signing this document, were heard in Brussels or other European capitals. As a result, I am sure, the unique chance was simply missed by us.

- What do you mean?

- By signing the Agreement on behalf of Ukraine, Yanukovych would have been obliged to follow, at least formally, but under the control of relevant European structures, those key demands, which had been put forward, and are put forward now for reforming the country according to European patterns. As any other leader of Ukraine, he would not be allowed to violate human rights, and gradually he would be made to apply European standards in all spheres of our life. At least, many people who at that stage tried to approximate the European prospects of our country, were convinced about that.

It is clear, history knows no 'if'. We do not know how events could evolve, in case the Association Agreement was signed by Yanukovych in Vilnius. One thing is clear – the push given by Maidan for forming the Ukrainian political nation, became the most important historical event.

The new president and Verkhovna Rada, which is to be elected in the nearest days, have the unique mandate for carrying out the widest, cardinal changes, which would be able to change both the political landscape and the motivation of state decision-makers; to establish real political accountability and conscious interaction of the society and the authorities.

But it depends on those who in this difficult historical moment had assumed responsibility and occupied the key political offices in Ukraine. I hope they will meet this challenge. I am ready to help them in any way. But still the entire responsibility belongs to them, including the responsibility for the lives of those who are defending Ukraine in the east now.

- What was the role of the monitoring mission of the European Parliament’s representatives headed by the ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski at the talks with Yanukovych during Maidan? Have Kwasniewski done everything possible? Had he any chances at all?

- President Kwasniewski is a devoted friend of Ukraine. At all stages he had been doing everything possible in order to find the most appropriate and at the same time realistic solutions, which would meet the interests of Ukraine itself. He played a critical role during the round table discussions in 2004 with participation of Kuchma, Yushchenko and Yanukovych, which allowed avoiding a large-scale bloodshed then. But during the last Maidan his peacemaking efforts faced much more difficult challenges.

- Considering your colossal experience, have you supposed that after the victory of Euromaidan Russia would attack Ukraine?

- No. To my mind, the things that have happened, conflict with the interests of Russia itself. It’s true, there is longstanding belief in the Russian society that “Crimea is ours”, “Crimea had been given away by Khrushchev”. They have probably forgotten, and certainly do not want to recall that a considerable area of Ukrainian territories were given to Russia then, for many years a myth was imposed that the Russian-speaking population is oppressed somehow there, though Russian had been always spoken in the Crimea, and a half of all living in Ukraine use Russian in everyday communication, at work and at home.

In Europe and in other regions of the world one could find dozens, or even hundreds of established myths about historical injustice of handing over this or that territory to this or that state.

I remember that in Soviet times in Moscow many peers of mine were upset that Alaska had been sold to the US once. I think that if Alaska was a part of the Soviet Union then, people living there would be unhappy about that. And this situation is the same, it is important that problems faced by common people are resolved within the established state borders. The economy should work for them, they should have opportunities of traveling around the world freely, of receiving education both in their home country and in the best universities of the world.

Annexation of Crimea does not offer them that, quite on the contrary. But the most awful thing in these events is the attempt to pit the people of Russia against people of Ukraine. It is done by the Russian authorities, Russian TV channels together with printed media. And now it has born its poisonous fruits: judging by Russian opinion polls, most of Russians consider Ukrainians their enemies. For many years we would have to work to heal the wounds of the war, to bemoan thousands of the killed, but also to restore the trust between our nations.

The occupation of Crimea has placed Russia in an extremely difficult situation. Seizure of the territory of the friendly neighbouring state, with which “a major treaty” had been signed, guarantees of Budapest memorandum had been given, including the principles of non-interference and territorial integrity. All this is unacceptable from the point of view of the international law and a normal human logic as well. It creates preconditions for creeping of this precedent to other territories. The policy of Putin has caused disruption of the underlying principles of the modern international law.

At the modern stage of humankind development the fundamental principles are important, and big and small states should live according to them. And a territory does not play such a role any more, as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today the key role of the state is to provide economic and spiritual development of a society, every individual on the foundation of cultural and national traditions. It is impossible to be achieved without a full involvement in the global economy and the world processes, which are in fact a basis of the modern stage of development of the civilization as such.

In this case everything goes contrary to this trend. Russia is isolating itself from the world, and it is not to the best interests of Russia as a state, and of Russian citizens as a multi-ethnic people. Why has it happened? How the corresponding decisions had been adopted? These questions could be answered only by historians probably. As far as I know, the decision to annex Crimea had become a surprise for many in the Russian leadership.

- Despite all these system-level mistakes, it is obvious that Putin is not going to stop in his effort to build an empire. Or could he be stopped by anything?

- It looks as if many decisions taken by the Kremlin are unpremeditated, depending on the changing situation. The changes of Russia’s political line could be influenced by the complicated state of the Russian economy. It would be difficult for Russia to resist a confrontation with the West, to bear huge military expenses, supporting mobilization of the Russian society. They would have to neutralize the effect of the Crimea precedent, which could be used in different corners of Russia.

“Anything, which is forbidden to others, is permitted to me,” such a principle won’t work in the modern world.

The precedent of Crimea is a threat for Russia itself. It is necessary to look for a way out of this situation. No matter what bloody confrontation is taking place, a way out could be found if desired and with a help from the international community. The example for that is Yugoslavia, with its thousands and thousands of victims, a large-scale war for many years. But as time went by, they succeeded to reach a lasting peace, which allowed Croatia to be a member of the European Union. We shall go this anything but simple path without doubt. I am sure about that. To find out how this goal could be reached as soon as possible, and with minimum losses, is the most important task for all of us.

- What could be your recommendations to the new government of Ukraine?

- Now we are living in the conditions which cause extremely serious challenges not only for Ukraine and Europe, but for the whole world. Solution of Ukraine’s problems depends first of all on us, though there is a wide-spread belief in the society that someone should do that for us.

Leaders of the state and moral authorities of the country are to play a defining role here. They must join their efforts to reach our common goal. There is simply no other choice for us.

- What is your evaluation of the role of Lukashenka in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? It looks as of the new Ukrainian authorities pin their hopes on him.

- Belarus offered a place for holding a Minsk meeting. It was difficult to find any other suitable place under current conditions probably.

- Geneva?

- Perhaps, there is no good place by definition. The experience of the Russian-Georgian talks there with involvement of representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could not be called a successful one. At least for Georgia.

- But in addition to being a venue for negotiations, today it is a place for stationing Russian military. Do you understand the threat for Ukraine coming from Belarus?

- Potentially, such a threat is possible. But there are many other directions, along which the aggression could be launched. The main potential threat for Ukraine is then fact that the armed conflict had not been stopped so far.

Essentially, “the hybrid peace” has replaced “the hybrid war.” And this peace can turn into a full-scale, not a hybrid, war any moment, and it is a threat not only to Ukraine, but for the entire Europe.

- You are the only Ukrainian politician, who had visited Minsk, met not only with the authorities, but with the leaders of the Belarusian opposition as well. When all of us were imprisoned, you voiced a demand to release political prisoners. Why did you do that?

- I have close friends in Belarus. For a long time I have been closely watching the developments in the neighbouring country. I am convinced that it is not just unacceptable in today Europe to violate human rights, commitments of the state to the world community in this sphere, but it also works against the authorities of such a state. And a high price is to be paid for that.

It is a price of broken human lives, economic sanctions, isolation. Finally, as a result of historical development, even if it is to take time, all of us are to reach a common understanding that we are to live according to European standards inevitably, no matter whether somebody likes that or not. And I talked about that with my Belarusian colleagues during my meetings in Belarus and at other venues.

All the time I was updated about the events in Belarus. I received information not only from official sources, not only from our Embassy, but through other channels as well. I remember the scale of human suffering faced by those to advocate freedom and European future for Belarus. I did all my best amid that context.

Many decisions of the Belarusian leadership do harm to themselves. Actually, it was confirmed by the harsh reaction experienced by Belarus after the events of 2010.

It is important to help those who need that. It demanded unusual efforts sometimes. And I received practical support from different people, including those who are considered to be connected to the previous authorities here. I do not understand why other political figures, who consider themselves true democrats, do not do that.

The old Polish slogan “For ours and your freedom” continues to be relevant for everyone, who not only declare their faith in democracy, but are ready to fight for it.

Write your comment

Follow Charter97.org social media accounts