KW: How did it turn out that the world’s second largest country does not have ambitions of a superpower? How do you manage to be friends with the entire world?
 |
| PHÎÒÎ: I. DOBROVOLSKIY |
K.C.: Indeed, geographically we are the second largest country in the world. However, our population is not large. More people live in the State of California than in all of Canada. Besides that, Canadian statehood was not based on revolution; it was built on peaceful democratic transformation. Our whole national tradition is peaceful. We could not play a tough role historically but we clearly understand that we are a rich and strong country with highly developed systems of law, education and public administration. Canadians realize their responsibility to the rest of the world; this is a typical trait of Canadian mentality. However, since our population is relatively small and our territory is large, we are not as strategically organized to be an international heavyweight. In addition, we live neighbor with the U.S., a global superpower, and we tend to have an ambiguous “love-hate” relationship. We greatly benefit from having access to the American market. Canadian-American trade relations are the largest bilateral relations in the world and Canadians greatly profit from them as this helps to maintain high standards of living. But we are not like Americans. We have a totally different society. Sometimes, we feel that we need to somehow emphasize these differences to remind people that we are not a smaller and calmer version of the U.S., that we are a different society. Americans are becoming more conservative, while Canadians – more liberal. Americans are much more religious than Canadians. Canadian society is becoming more like those in Scandinavian countries in terms of a high level of tolerance. This is what makes us different from the U.S. We objectively could not be a hegemonic country. After all, we live next to a strong superpower that would not allow this. So, we had to find a form that allows us to apply our values and our power in a constructive way.
KW: You were saying about being neighbors with a superpower. My question is do Canada and Ukraine have much in common as they both have a very ambitious neighbor and there is a language issue. What experience of Canada could be useful for Ukraine?
K.C.: I think it would be useful for Ukrainians to look at Canadian language policy to understand that it is fully possible to find a balance in the formation of government institutions. Our language policy does not foresee turning Canadians into a bilingual nation. It is built in a way to allow them to remain multi-lingual.
There is some similarity with Ukraine. As the homeland of Ukrainian language here, the French culture of Canada is unique and special. If Ukraine does not preserve the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture, who else is going to do it? At the same time, a large part of your country’s population speaks Russian. In Canada, we found a way to institutionally use both languages to preserve the one under threat, in our case, French. In your case it is Ukrainian, because it is not spoken outside the country. However, the language issue does not necessarily have to become a source of problems as it has great potential. Speaking in two languages expands one’s horizons and opportunities. Seeing as nobody outside Ukraine speaks Ukrainian, you have to speak another language when abroad and it is primarily English. However, knowing the Russian language opens access to other countries in the region.
KW: What about the second part of the question – a superpower as a neighbor?
K.C.: A nearby superpower always forces its neighbors to stand on their tiptoes. I am not sure that Russia is a superpower, though it is definitely a force to be reckoned with in terms of its arsenal of nuclear weapons and ambitions. And it is a force that believes that it still has the right to control its ‘younger brothers’. Balancing relations with Europe and Russia is one of the most serious challenges for Ukraine, as it has an extremely advantageous strategic geographic location. But his also implies certain difficulties, as ‘everybody wants to control us’. It is a fact that Ukraine is situated on the crossroads. I do not think Ukraine needs to join any of the geo-political camps.
Ukraine needs strong economic relations with Russia. It is a natural market. One can thoughtfully say ‘we need to trade more with this or that country’. But if it does not make sense from an economic standpoint, nobody will agree to this. Canada often tried to diversify its markets saying “we should not depend so much on the U.S.”. Today, Canada trades with the entire world. However, the main share of our trade is linked with the U.S., as it is economically grounded and justified. I think that the door-to-door life with Russia and the European Union, which is also a superpower in an economic sense, presents Ukraine the best opportunities as it provides access to huge markets. Although certain European countries say Ukraine will never be a part of the EU, this statement is somewhat premature. Ukraine is discussing a free trade agreement with the EU. The good thing in this is that in order to establish such relations with Europe, Ukraine must conduct internal reforms. The phrase “we need to do this, because it is a part of the path to Europe” should reduce the heat of political debates. Russia will not promote democracy in Ukraine and this is the drawback of relations with it. However, Ukraine has already demonstrated its democratic spirit. While it is much more democratic than Russia, your government is not always effective.
KW: It seems you approve of our return to a multi-vector policy?
K.C.: I think it is a natural state of affairs that is inevitable.
KW: How would you describe the current political situation in Ukraine?
K.C.: There is never a dull moment in Ukrainian politics. It is always interesting. I must admit that I am proud of your country. Ukraine has a very interesting political energy. While the country has achieved many changes in a relatively short period of time, there remains a lot to be done.
Regardless of whether there will be early parliamentary elections or you wait for another two years, I think that at this point in time it is important to have a president and parliament of one political orientation. If inter-party cooperation is established, this would not be so important. However, it seems that at the moment this is not visible. The current president was highly criticized in the past. Simply recall the Orange Revolution. It seems that he learned some lessons from it. So, I’m hoping that some real reforms will be conducted. This, however, is not only about adoption of laws. Bodies of public administration must be established and developed in order to enforce these laws. There are many problems ahead, but I am cautiously optimistic. In the early stages of democracy, parties gather around concrete leaders and there is often personal enmity between these leaders. But after that they mature and become more institutional.
KW: How did Ukraine manage to deal with the financial crisis?
K.C.: Not as well as it could or should have. But I think the crisis showed the need to create effective institutions and effective public administration. Problems with receiving financial aid from the IMF and the parliament’s capacity to adopt laws in the banking sector corroborate the need to create effective structures of governance to make the system more flexible. Ukraine’s problem is that its institutions and legal mechanisms are not sufficiently developed. The crisis is a classic example that illustrates how important it is to develop these democratic institutions. It is good that this was an economic crisis, not a security crisis, and earthquake or something else. Society may face many critical situations and should be prepared to react to them.
KW: Europeans are trying to set up a new European security system. Is this an attempt of the EU to reduce the functions of NATO, thereby weakening the influence of the U.S. on Europe?
K.C.: Europeans want to preserve the aspirations of the U.S. to maintain security in Europe. They admit, however, that the situation in the security sphere has now changed. In the past, our policy was based on counteracting Soviet invasion. We know where the tanks will come from. In Canada we knew how missiles will fly and had hoped that they would be targeted at the U.S. instead of us. Today, this issue is not on the agenda for discussion. I don’t think there is a concern about threats to continental Europe. Instead, the question is how united forces can be applied to counteract threats to the region? I believe NATO will remain a very important security instrument, but I think there are areas where Europeans would prefer to act independently from the U.S. I strongly doubt that they will squeeze out NATO. However, having an economic union and community with a consolidated foreign policy, Europeans quite naturally are trying to develop a common policy in the security sphere. It is not necessarily that they will have a serious military constituent, but the policy will be built as if it were one country, since this is what the EU aims at.
Printable version
