Begin forwarded message:
From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj
(Михайло Винницький)
Sent: Nov. 27, 2013 @ 17:16 EST
To: [GROUP]
Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius
(Please distribute as appropriate.)
36 hours to go – will he sign?
Since yesterday I have become more pessimistic about the results of the upcoming Vilnius summit. In my opinion, the odds of a signature on the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (which includes a pact on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade) now seem to have dropped to about 3:1 against. A deal is not out of the question, but EU leaders need to come to Vilnius in the same haggling mindset as Yanukovych. The price of a deal is probably about 2-3 billion euros per year over the next few years. Is this too high? By tomorrow we should know…
Sadly, Ukraine’s President seems to be convinced that EU Association is about money. Tonight, Ukraine’s TV channels aired an extensive interview/discussion between Yanukovych and 5 journalists (excerpts were made available on websites this morning) during which he angrily condemned the EU for its laughable offer of 610 million euro per year in aid in the event of a deal. Apparently this figure represents the amount offered by the EU to Ukraine as a stabilization fund to be made available in conjunction with an IMF stand-by loan agreement. For Yanukovych, this amount of money is like offering “a little bit of candy in a nice wrapper” - an insult to a “serious country”. During the televised program, the President repeated the phrase “defending our own interests” several times with respect to his motives for signing or not signing any agreement with the EU – clearly pointing to quantifiable economic benefits to the nation as the price for his signature on the Association Agreement.
Unlike Yanukovych, the protestors on the “Euromaidans” of Ukraine’s cities understand the Agreement not as an economic deal, but rather as a proclamation of common values, and a declaration of Ukraine’s European identity. Accordingly, for them, the question of how much money Ukraine’s eurointegration will cost is irrelevant. To some extent this non-materialist (romantic?) paradigm reflects the youthful exuberance of the students gathered in Kyiv and in other centers, but it also reflects a very real social cleavage between Ukraine’s leaders and its people.
Clearly many of the students who marched to Independence Square today from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, from Kyiv State University, and from Kyiv Politechnic Institute (the country’s 3 top-ranked universities) were motivated by a desire to live through their own version of a kind of Orange Revolution (most were too young to have taken an active part in events in 2004). But many others - particularly those who have traveled to the EU for studies – are genuinely attracted by the egalitarian, communitarian social model of Europe.
In his televised address to the nation on Monday, Yanukovych proclaimed his unwavering belief in a “Ukrainian dream”, and his desire to build “a society of equal opportunity”. Even if one discounts the lack of credibility of Ukraine’s current President with respect to such visionary proclamations, the materialism of his discourse sounds hollow to protesters gathering in sub-zero temperatures to demand a deal in Vilnius. Tonight, for over an hour, the President’s discussion with TV journalists touched on gas price negotiations with Putin, Ukraine’s trade volumes with Russia and the EU, comparative macroeconomic indicators, import tariffs, aircraft assembly, unemployment levels, pensions, salaries, prices… Values such as social justice, freedom of movement, expression, and association, and rules-based government (not surprisingly) were not mentioned by the President.
Sadly, Yanukovych’s materialist paradigm is irreconcilable with the post-materialist worldview of Euromaidan’s protesting students, and is probably incompatible with the frames of reference of the EU leaders currently on their way to Vilnius. If a deal is to be reached between these two worldviews, one side needs to give way for the sake of the greater good. One option may be to sign an Association Agreement without a Free Trade Agreement. Another option may be to increase the EU’s economic aid offer to Ukraine (essentially “buying” Yanukovych’s signature), and then to use the financial “stick” as a means of ensuring the Ukrainian government keeps its promises after the summit becomes history. Clearly neither option is attractive to EU leaders not accustomed to haggling over the price of joining the European family.
In Vilnius, the EU’s leaders not only face a difficult decision with respect to values, they must also deal with the problem of the persona of Yanukovych – a counterpart that few of them find personally amenable. By supporting the Ukrainian people’s desire to join Europe’s community of values, they risk allowing the country’s President (the embodiment of the antithesis of such values) to return from Vilnius as a hero with a strong chance of re-election in 2015. On the other hand, if the Ukrainian people’s aspirations for a European future are denied in Vilnius, the EU risks social unrest on its borders. Ukraine is not Belarus, and Yanukovych is not Lukashenka, so an authoritarian clamp-down (to be followed by EU isolation) is unlikely. This country will not tolerate dictatorship, but the EU’s most populous eastern neighbor may yet succumb to its regional, generational, and linguistic cleavages. One shudders to imagine the human losses of such a scenario.
Yesterday I posted a note analyzing current events in Ukraine in which I placed 3:1 odds in favor of a successful conclusion to the Vilnius summit. That post generated two mutually contradictory reactions: a) I was accused of wishful thinking by people who see Yanukovych as the embodiment of evil, surrounded by essentially stupid advisors who could not possibly have crafted a plan to improve the President’s bargaining position with the EU and simultaneously his chances of re-election; b) I was accused of pessimism because I dared to mention that the current situation could potentially lead to violence on the streets, widespread social unrest, and even Ukraine’s possible disintegration if the Association Agreement is not signed. On the one hand, I guess, I was/am too optimistic, and simultaneously too pessimistic.
I remain hopeful that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will in fact be signed on Friday in Vilnius. On her birthday, Yulia Tymoshenko, whose continued imprisonment was considered only a week ago to be a major obstacle to any deal, today issued a statement asking EU leaders to swallow their distaste, to ignore her confinement, and to sign the deal for the sake of the Ukrainian people. For the EU this is clearly a difficult pill to swallow, but the alternative is much worse…
According to news reports from Europe, the draft of the final communique from Vilnius (to be finalized at the Summit) still includes a reference to a signed Association Agreement with Ukraine. European Commissioners Fule and Ashworth have both stated that the Agreement remains on the agenda of the Vilnius meeting. Clearly this is a polite way of saying that the decision is up to Yanukovych. Today, Ukraine’s President publicly broadcast that he is willing to bargain and haggle. That may be disgraceful (perhaps even disgusting from a European perspective), but it’s a fact that leaders in Vilnius must now deal with.
One can only hope that those who proclaim their belief in European values, and are called upon to lead their nations with values as guides for their decisions, will heed the calls of the young people demonstrating their belief in these same values on the freezing squares of Kyiv and Ukraine’s other cities. Distasteful as a deal may be for EU leaders today, it is these young Ukrainians who will benefit in the long term. And they are worth it!
Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
