Boris Tarasyuk: Diplomats were the first to support the revolution

Ukraine’s former foreign minister is convinced that there shouldn’t be more trade-offs with authoritarian regimes.

Former foreign minister of Ukraine, member of the European integration Committee of the Supreme Rada Boris Tarasyuk believes that today Belarusian and Ukrainian democrats should fight for freedom together. The diplomat with an almost 40-year long experience and the co-chair of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly gave an interview to the editor-in-chief of charter97.org Natallia Radzina.

- Boris Ivanovich, you were the foreign minister twice. Could you evaluate the relationship between Belarus and Ukraine?

- I cannot say that recently there have been any dramatic changes in the relationship between Belarus and Ukraine. But this relationship, just like before, is aggravated by unresolved problems. The problem of delimitation of the state border is one of them. It complicates our relationship, but however it doesn’t affect the general dynamics of trade and economic relations between Ukraine and Belarus.

The Belarusian leadership is the problem. Lukashenka who could solve this issue personally doesn’t do anything, evidently, for two reasons. One of them is the demands of Moscow; it is in Moscow’s interest that Ukraine should have even minor problems. The second reason may be the fact that the Belarusian president is expecting Ukraine to pay back an inexistent debt.

- Why have Ukraine’s powers always counted on Lukashenka? After the “orange” revolution, Belarusian democrats counted on your support, but instead, Viktor Yushchenko chose to build a relationship with the dictator.

- It all depends on whom to consider Ukraine’s powers and democrats. Yes, the Belarusian regime is authoritarian, but we should still preserve our trade relations, and this is my explanation of the fact that Yushchenko met with Lukashenka.

Personally, I have never cut my contacts with the Belarusian opposition, neither as an oppositionist, nor as a foreign minister. But, first of all, the Belarusian opposition should work to strengthen its popularity with the people of Belarus. Any regime does what the society allows it to do. But of course, we cannot compare the authoritarian regimes of Kuchma or Yanukovich with Lukashenka’s regime.

On the other side, I partially understand the critique of the Ukrainian democrats, and I am ready to discuss what we can do together with you now when we ourselves are in opposition.

Trust me, my years as a diplomat and politician have shown that nobody will come to help us from abroad. We must do the work ourselves.

- Zbigniew Brzezinski hoped that the independent Ukraine will become a “liberator” of the region. In your opinion, why haven’t these hopes become a reality? He thought that Ukraine is a new crucial “cell” on the Eurasian chessboard, a new geopolitical axis. Ukraine’s very existence as an independent state makes transformations in Russia possible.

- Of course, Ukraine with its territory and traditions has all prerequisites to be the region’s leader. And it demonstrated its leader qualities when the democracy prevailed in 2004. Ukraine cannot be the region’s leader with its incumbent powers because of some well-known reasons and because of how the European Union, the U.S. and the entire democratic world treat the country today.

- You are an active advocate and follower of the European integration, even though you worked in the Foreign Ministry of the Ukrainian SSR. How did a soviet diplomat become convinced that Ukraine should only be in Europe?

- Firstly, a diplomat cannot rely only on instructions and directions. A diplomat should do some thinking and define landmarks. I defined my landmarks when I worked in the Foreign Ministry of the Ukrainian SSR since 1975. Of course, it didn’t happen at once, it took some time, but the fact that diplomats could see the life outside the “iron curtain” played a vital role for our outlook and perception of the outer world.

When in 1990 a new window of opportunities appeared, the Ukrainians readily used it to gain independence. Already in August 1990 I was a member of a group of diplomats headed by the foreign minister who engaged in direct bilateral international contacts, first with Hungary, then Poland, then Germany. For me, the independence was not to be questioned. Even in the Ukrainian SSR some diplomats and I worked for independent Ukraine, although formally independence was proclaimed a year later.

By the way, after the putsch of 1991, diplomats gathered in the Foreign Ministry for an improvised meeting and agreed not to support the leaders of the putsch, including those in Ukraine. In 2004, during the “orange” revolution when millions of Ukrainians revolted against the undemocratic regime and falsifications, it was the diplomats of the central institution and foreign missions who signed the declaration of support of democracy and nation.

It was a bold step; nobody from other professional spheres has done anything similar. More than 500 Ukrainian diplomats supported the “orange” revolution, which shows how patriotic Ukrainian diplomats are. All these events made me realize that Ukraine should be a part of the united democratic Europe, a member of the European Union and NATO. Unfortunately, the present powers have eliminated the objective of joining the NATO, but I believe that when we get the power back, we’ll resume this course.

- And what is Viktor Yanukovich’s course in the foreign politics? The new model of cooperation between Ukraine and the Eurasian economic union disagrees with Ukraine’s membership in the WTO and the strategic course towards the European integration.

- In short, I would say that Yanukovich’s foreign politics is reactive. There is a reaction to external factors, but the foreign politics lacks construction.

I understand why this is happening. Basically, Ukraine ceased any activity as a subject of foreign politics and since 2010 it has rapidly turned into a political object. Moreover, this object is influenced from outside: mostly from Russia, the E.U. and U.S. Certainly, this situation could only have negative influence on the realization of Ukraine’s interests in the foreign politics.

Today Ukraine is internationally isolated; however, this isolation is different from the Belarusian. It is often said that Ukraine is not Belarus, and it is true. But a comparison with the past periods shows that today we are isolated in terms of foreign politics. Let me give you some facts to prove my point.

No country in the E.U. or U.S. recognized president Yanukovich last year. He invited 20 leaders of Central European countries to the Summit of Central Europe planned for May 2012 in Yalta. 16 presidents boycotted the invitation and the summit was canceled.

Today European structures are having a serious discussion about sanctions against the representatives of the regime that violate human rights, stand behind repressions against the opposition leaders, protect the so-called law enforcement institutions in their struggle against political rivals. The U.S. Congress has already adopted a resolution on such sanctions. This has never happened in the history of independent Ukraine. I can only recall one case when Ukraine was isolated and it was related to an internal discussion about the nuclear weapons in 1992-1993.

- During several months you were the foreign minister despite Yanukovich’s disapproval. Where does this dislike come from and why did he demand your resignation?

- His government’s work started in August 2006. I resigned in late January 2007. He expressed his distrust in 2006, and president Yushchenko disagreed. According to the Constitution I reported to the president, and he authorized me to continue my work. But in the end when the situation became, in my view, absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of morality and attitude to diplomats (and at those times Yanukovich’s government basically threatened to stop funding the Foreign Ministry) I decided to resign to keep my colleagues out of trouble.

I have never been Yanukovich’s man. On the contrary, I have always been on the opposite side. At those times I was even the head of the legendary People’s Movement of Ukraine and a political opponent of the government. It was one of the elements of confrontation between the incumbent prime minister Yanukovich and president Yushchenko. You know how it ended – in the pre-term parliamentary elections.

- Whom will you support at the presidential elections 2015?

- It depends on several factors. If Yulia Tymoshenko is released, with our help and the help of our foreign partners, I see no other alternative. Moreover, the union of opposition Batkivshchyna resolved to support only one candidate and it is Yulia Tymoshenko. If it doesn’t happen, due to various reasons, I see no point in making up my mind today. It will be a result of our internal discussions.

Ultimately I am a member of the political leadership of the united opposition Batkivshchina. Together with Vitali Klichko’s UDAR and Oleg Tagnibok’s Freedom, we will define our position later before the elections. Our purpose is to select a single candidate. It is too early to talk about who will be this candidate. Nevertheless, social science doesn’t leave Yanukovich any chance to be re-elected. Analysts say that he will lose to any candidate from the opposition.

- An agreement on association with Ukraine is expected to be signed at the summit of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius. Should the agreement be signed with the current powers?

- As a consequent advocate of the European integration, sometimes even called “euroromantic”, I support the agreement on association. And, by the way, it was us, democrats, who initiated the work with this agreement in 2006-2007. At the same time I support the conditions that the E.U. has presented in the resolution of the Counsel of foreign ministers on December 10, 2012.

There are three groups of conditions. Firstly, the selective justice should be stopped. Yuri Lutsenko was the first victim who became its symbol, and now it is Yulia Tymoshenko. Secondly, our electoral legislation should correspond with the recommendations of the Venetian commission and Bureau of democratic institutions and human rights. And thirdly, reforms that Ukraine vowed to perform according to the association’s agenda should be held. In other words, these are the minimal demands that we, representatives of the democratic opposition, want to be met before this agreement is signed.

There are countries, members of the E.U. that are ready to sign this agreement without the demands met. In my view, this is a wrong position.

The fundamental values and principles of the E.U. should never be compromised this way, neither to Yanukovich nor to any other authoritarian regime.