Oleksandr Chalyi
21-01-2010
Thank you for the invitation to participate in the conference. My first conclusion is that the economic crisis and social-economic crisis have had long-term and significant consequences for security throughout the whole of wider Europe and in our region.
Why? The crisis started not from the periphery. It started in the centre and it is a key feature of this crisis.
What are the consequences? For the first time we see that the United States, after many decades of assurances that they will not leave Europe, has made the strategic decision to refocus their foreign and security policy. The key direction of this policy becomes the Asia-Pacific coast. This means that the USA, practically, is leaving Europe. This is an irreversible process, which will have long-lasting consequences for the entire European security system
Second, the United States today is very engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. This reduces greatly their capacity for independent actions on the European continent.
I have just returned from the United States, where I participated in several international conferences. Joe Biden’s assistant on international issues addressed the statement of central European countries, which are very concerned about the situation that some believe is a security vacuum being created in Europe. He stated, “You, Europeans, need to stop thinking about what the United States can do for you. The world has changed. Now we can only think together with you about what we can make together for European security”. This is my first conclusion.
The second conclusion is a positive one. Europeans for the first time in post-war history are able to answer more independently and more responsibly for their safety. Not everyone is ready for that. To my European colleagues, I say: "Look, you, the members of NATO, the members of the EU. You go to Washington and talk about a lack of security, and what Ukraine should say, who is neither a member of NATO, nor an EU member and will not become one during the next 20-30 years?"
Ukraine should say that one should understand firstly that there is a request for European security from global development because of conditions created by the crisis. Because of the conditions created by the crisis there is a request for consensus, not for confrontation. Only through consensus can crises be solved. In terms of European security, today there is a request for a more corporate European security, not for confrontation. So we must restructure our brain and understand that the appeal of: "We will be with you against someone" is not what’s needed now. Everyone wants to see Ukraine and Central Europe as a part of the solution, but they don’t see the problems themselves. I think this is one of the key features that we must understand now in Ukraine.
In this regard, there is the third question. The request for general security of a wider Europe, the big Europe, becomes relevant as never before. OSCE failed to perform this function after its crises, which took place in Kosovo, Abkhazia and Ossetia. In fact, we have a crisis of the fundamentals of the OSCE. Today we put the question to all. Both Russia and the West agree with that. Ukraine should raise questions about the new Helsinki process – Helsinki-2. I think you need to set a very ambitious task, perhaps, that this process be called the Kyiv initiative and propose that its centre of conduct is Ukraine.
Because – I speak of Ukraine – it is the only large regional European state that after the Cold War has not received any answer to the question of its security. In fact, until the answer to the question of Ukrainian security is found, the Cold War is not over.
We tried to resolve this question by getting NATO membership. That is not our fault, though I agree with you that there are many unsolved domestic issues. It is not our fault, but as a result of contemporary geopolitics and geo-economics, the path to NATO for us is closed. In fact, Ukraine has the right to put before both Moscow and Washington, and Brussels, the question: “What to do about Ukrainian security?” Especially in the context of the assurances we were given by the Budapest Memorandum, we have the right, if we feel a lack of security, to convene at least a P5 high-level conference in Kyiv.
I think today this conference is very timely. Ukraine should think of a new form for its security in the 21st century that will meet new challenges. These new challenges require that the Ukrainian security policy have an absolutely new role, new diplomacy, from the one it has had for the last five years and which aimed at full confrontation of the East–West line. We were a key element of this confrontation. Today, on the contrary, we must transform ourselves into a key element that will help to create a deeper system of European security. That is the transformation of the OSCE into the new, more powerful overall Pan-European security structure. I am absolutely convinced that there are no other chances either for Ukraine, or for Europe. I want to end my speech with this analysis, which has struck me a little.
In America today absolutely all recognise that the world has become multipolar. You remember that for many years they flatly refused this concept. In America, they made a very serious transformation of the multipolar world formula. They stated that it was a bad formula; it was confrontational. We must speak not about the multipolar world, but about the multi-partners world. I again want to draw attention to the key country of the global world, which now clearly understands that it has limited resources. It clearly sends a message to Europe – Europe must be more engaged with its security. It gives a clear signal to the world that security must be built on a cooperative basis, rather than on a confrontational basis.
I think that after the presidential elections, Ukrainian foreign policy, security policy and Ukrainian diplomacy must reach the same fundamental conclusions. Thank you.
