WHAT FUTURE FOR EUROPE?
Alexandra Tsyliya
What is history if not a fairy-tale, In which everybody agreed
to believe?
Napoleon Bonaparte
The idea of a united Europe was once just a dream in the minds of
philosophers and visionaries. "A day will come when all the nations
of this continent without losing their distinct qualities or their
glorious individuality, will fuse together in a higher unity and form
the European brotherhood. A day will come when there will be no other
battlefields than those of the mind – open marketplaces for ideas. A
day will come when bullets and bombs will be replaced by votes".
Victor Hugo spoke those prophetic words in 1849. It took more than a
century for his utopian predictions to start coming true. He imagined
a peaceful "United States of Europe" inspired by humanistic ideals. But
the dream was shattered by two terrible wars that ravaged the continent
during the first half of the 20th century.
n The fantastic modification of the map of Europe began in 1953,
when there was a popular uprising in Berlin, which continued in 1956
in Hungary and Poland. Then there was the Prague Spring of 1968,
Solidarity, and Chapter-77, led by Vaclav Havel. Times of two world
wars and countless conflicts seemed all hope to be lost. But despite
fiascos followed each other, transformations in Europe continued
their way.
The EU worked hard to help unify Germany after the fall of the Berlin
wall in 1989. When the Soviet empire fell apart in 1991, the countries
of Central and Eastern Europe, having lived for decades under the
authoritarian yoke of the Warsaw Pact, quite naturally decided that
their future lay within the family of democratic European nations. So
today, the dawning of the 21st century also offers new difficulties
and challenges but at the same time brings brighter prospects and
renewed hope.
Ukraine at the crossroads
Ukraine is Europe’s past. Ukraine is proving to be Europe’s today. And
Ukraine is aspiring to be Europe’s future. Much depends on Ukraine
but its position was considerably weakened after numerous collapses
of coalitions. Not only people in Europe but citizens of Ukraine
no longer see the president of Ukraine as the main factor in his
country’s policies. At the same time nobody sees a new leader of
Ukraine, who will lead the country along the path of reform genuine
rapprochement with the EU.
On the whole, during the last few years more and more rumors are
turning round Ukraine. As the consequence, Ukraine has become one of
the burning spots in the world. In mind of most of the Europeans,
Ukraine as independent state still remains unknown, mysterious and
because of that more and more fetching. It’s time to clear up – what
represents Ukraine as undiscovered Europe? What part in "alignment
of forces" of Eastern Europe the state plays? What are the main
issues? And what are the particular features in relationship with
other countries?
There’s still a sense of some change in and around Ukraine. It would
be fair to confess, that under circumstances of new time, Ukraine is
still learning. Learning to live and cooperate. Learning to forgive
and ask for forgiveness.
Entering NATO is one of the sharpest questions in Ukrainian
society. Mostly, politicians try to dispel the "stereotypes" that
Ukrainians have concerning this issue. Although they do concern! On
the one hand, NATO membership will enable Ukraine to participate in
international production processes, attract more foreign investments,
and join countries with democratic values. Freedom, rule of law and
market economy, guarantees of national security, an effective national
defense sector, government transparency and economic stability are
advantages of joining the Alliance. Ukraine will also apply new
standards to education and health security system, customs and road
administration, industrial and commercial progress.
However, country, which wants to become the member of NATO, must
demonstrate the high standards of reforms, democratic constitution
and ability to bring in a ponderable contribution to the structure
of safety of Alliance. So it would be fair to confess that Ukraine is
not ready for such a step. Besides, this membership brings dangerous
consequences as the location of the PRO system on the territory of the
state. According to the statistics, most Ukrainians (60-70%) behave
to this idea critically. And in the contrary to popular stereotype,
citizens not only of the eastern part of Ukraine feel anxiety and
disturbance pranging relationship with Russia. And the greatest
downside is that in case of joining the NATO relations with Russia
will deteriorate, and this will lead to possible increase in social
tensions, reductions in military contracts from Russia, and limited
discretion in foreign and military policy matters.
Because of unstable political situation and living in permanent state
of elections, it’s fair that European states test doubts that are
guided by considerations, which are dictated by the internal situation
in Ukraine. One of the principal reasons of skeptical attitude of row
of the European countries to the question of including of Ukraine to
NATO is the absence of unity of opinions in Ukraine. As the state
minister for foreign affairs of Germany Gernot Erler on October,
21, 2007 during video bridge Moscow – Berlin declared, "integration
of Ukraine in NATO can bring to the yet greater dissidence up the
country".
NATO should make its membership criteria more precise and
state that any candidate member must, above all, secure public
consensus. Furthermore, a candidate member must demonstrate strategic
responsibilities. Ukraine as well as Georgia fails to meet most
of these requirements. Somehow lowering the quality level of
membership criteria is not in the sphere of interests of Western
countries. Sometimes Ukraine’s actions remind unsuccessful attempts
to book the ticket that guarantees boarding the NATO and EU train. We
should stop asking the EU for prospects or signals. Ukraine must at
last carry out reforms and meet European standards in the economic,
political, and social spheres. Not seeking for the answer or keys in
Brussels or Paris, London or Berlin. As the answer is in Kyiv!
In the end of March one popular international project that was
organized by the Institute of Ukrainian Studies took place in Lvov
(Lviv) – Model Nato-2009: "60th Anniversary of NATO: Ukraine’s
Perspective of Common Security". The aim of the project was to learn
more about North-Atlantic Alliance. During the project participants
(the youth actively involved in community life) took part in the
simulation of work of NATO’s bodies, attending lectures and seminars &
also in the simulation of meetings of some NATO committees and North
Atlantic Council and had two real video brides with Brussels, during
which experts answered the questions. It gave a great experience,
impression, and knowledge to all participants as well as arguing a
lot regarding if NATO is/means USA and USA is/means NATO. But the main
thing was that participants came to conclusion that people feel a great
lack of information and the majority of population of the country is
often influenced by well-paid informational propaganda on the one hand
& informational reticence on the other. For instance, last year during
the social poll in one of the regions of Ukraine, 95% of respondents
were AGAINST entering the NATO but FOR membership in North-Atlantic
Alliance… Thus the issue needs to be brought to the public as it
will produce a radical turnaround in attitudes toward the Alliance.
Ukraine’s Endangered Revolution
Furthermore, such issue as "Ukraine at the crossroads" is becoming more
and more vulnerable but attractive tidbit for USA, Russia, EU. And what
about the national interest of Ukraine? Is Ukraine ready to access
the NATO, the Euro-Atlantic integration? Can mentality change? Is
there a possibility of Ukraine exploitation? And at last what about
relationship with Russia and the issue about applying the Radar and
anti-missile system? All these questions seek for appropriate answers
as much as the main challenge – does Ukraine’s perspective leads
society to the great future or to the losing of national identity?!…
If we remember the days of Orange Revolution, we can definitely say:
the fundamental values which defined the feelings and behavior of
thousands men and women, were values of freedom and justice. At the
same time it was a very romantic experience of feeling of belonging
to one political nation, one cultural community. People defended
not simply Ukraine but their homeland as a country of justice and
democracy.
Besides, we need to make clear what the Orange revolution was and
what it was not. It wasn’t in support of any political party. The
revolution was about Ukrainians standing up for their rights for the
first time in a very visible and powerful way. It was about Ukrainians
stopping a regime responsible for unprecedented corruption, mafia,
and the deaths of politicians and journalists in Ukraine.
I support any color of revolution as the way for people to express
their rights to manage properly the own country!But at nowadays,
peaceful invaders from so-called "western democratic countries",
either flatly or partly, make any revolution. After that people
became dependable to different power poles. That is all about such
revolutions, which I don’t support.
Every revolution gets exploited. Nation is afraid of every possible
leader who has strong ambitions to rule the country because he can
engage his nation in grandiose reckless scheme, as in case of Crimea –
in conflict that has nothing in common with vital interests of Ukraine,
in small change of global political competition. Unbelievable
but possible, because real power in many countries belongs to
well-defined clans that have cave-political level of consciousness
and hate everything that has another consciousness and interests. So
how to bring back power to simple people?! How to invade peoples’
trust? Simple peasants till now know no luxuries but time…
Generally, I prefer to mark out two moments in Ukrainian history
that stirred up people. The first is gaining independence. It went
off really rapidly, suddenly and spontaneously. The second refers to
the events of 2004, Orange Revolution, which made people believe that
they can change something, when the surge of pride for the country
appeared with just another assurance and promise. However, power
couldn’t hold its positions while month after month, year after year
all the promises dwindled just as people’s beliefs in new future. That
period was the time of great prerequisites, possibilities and beliefs
for appearance of national idea. Now nation feels skeptical towards
national idea although confesses desirability of its existence…
The problems of national self-identification
The transition to the European world consists of the establishment of a
system of institutions of parliamentary democracy, market economy and
national-state system. In the Ukrainian political reality different
regions were in different manners and different degrees oriented on
these values.
Originality of our situation in the context of the national idea
is that we have state territory, state border, we have the state
itself. We have nation which is called Ukrainians. We have symbolism
and attributes. We have the language. All these things determine our
self-identification. But there is no idea which can mobilize nation
giving sense for its existence.
In reality, Russia is working on these questions for more than
15 years. There are approximately 20 institutes, several national
doctrines are created. And still different conceptions of developing
are working out, rhythms of developing of the countries, today’s
tendencies are determined. Elaboration of similar subjects in our
country is lowered up to academic level but even there is not worked
up actively. Where are now analysts that are able to think conceptually
and abstractedly; that are unbiased to the power in the country?
Arguing about national idea it’s very important not to entangle in
"priorities" deciding what is more significant: citizenship or title
ethnos, territory or language, economics or ethnography. It’s important
to reach the state Pareto Optimum when combination of different
elements led up to the highest possible effectiveness. Genetically
rich Ukrainian ethnos is able to appear as core source for forming the
nation and accompanying ethnical groups have enough power to vary it.
Must the society get mature to conceive the national idea? Or maybe
exactly this national idea must join the nation in the name of the
future Ukrainian perspective? We can discuss these questions for a long
time. But it seems that it’s impossible to deny the notorious role of
personality in history and vanguard cultural layers in the process of
articulation of national consciousness. In any case, every nation needs
moral leaders, moral authorities. Every nation needs its heroes, people
who take the lead over time and who is capable to go up Golgotha.
Actually, the situation appears to be really interesting. After all,
none of the Ukrainian political parties is capable to suggest detailed
formula of national idea because hypothesis of forming national idea
is not perceived by them as actual. While groaning all the time,
rational suggestions made by intellectual elite of the state are
ignored by government all the time.
In case when the state doesn’t have mobilizing national idea, and as
consequence doesn’t possess consolidated – it harshly needs outer
"donors" of sovereignty. In Europe all these states traumatized by
the history of new time. Let’s name Bosnia & Herzegovina, Albania,
Moldova and others. Much more of such states are among third world
countries. It’s one more reason for serious thinking of the Ukrainian
nation and its future perspectives in global world.
We can fall within in captivity of stranger ideas although probably
will live easily. At first glance. We’ll just live in the other
context and won’t be able to manage situation and will be conducted
from the outside. For instance, there is a conception of EU, united
Europe. And we are like at the border – but impossible to understand –
do we the part of it or not. And then this idea moves all the brunches
of politics, economics and present effectively country in the world.
Now is absolutely new reality. We can characterize it in different
ways, we can like it or not but today we have multinational
Ukraine. We’ve got a great many of problems connected with different
attitude to the past, changed ethnography of Ukraine, and we must take
it into consideration. And all the totals of elections that took place
last years prove that Ukraine is not a mono national country. A great
amount of nations coexist here, and although there are dominating
nations but there is no such that could neglect the others.
Hence, revival of neglected and oppressed over the centuries
"ukrainstva" must be developed along with the revival of all
traditional ethnical elements of modern Ukrainian society. Only
then we’ll be able to create real Ukrainian community. Besides, we
shouldn’t seek for the answer from somewhere or from somebody. If
every citizen who has already understood the national interests of
this country tries his best to spread this perception in the society,
it will cause a great acceleration of the process.
National idea is a simultaneous perception of the past, present and
the future as they are interconnected and interdependent. Pragmatic
view at the perspectives must help avoiding too emotional appraisal of
the past. But to reach such level of self-perception and self-esteem
can only morally developed and educated society.
Every idea already exists as practice and politics interpret it
and adapt to modern conditions of the country. What we have is also
peculiar to European model of developing – respect of the personality,
the right for the personal opinion, human rights, the priority of
the personality. But it doesn’t mean that "Ukrainian national idea
is Euro integration", as says Vladimir Ushenko.
We must overstep the limits of stereotypes which insist that we are not
capable to survive on one’s own and spare inferiority complexes. We
have enough strong cultural wealth to be a strong nation. It’s just
necessary to confess that Ukrainians is a strong nation, and we have
no need to borrow something that will never be ours and something
which contradict with main ethical, moral postulates, our national
interests . National idea must serve the function of unity. If not,
it won’t exist.
Ukraine needs balanced politics of consolidation of East and West, what
is impossible without avoiding careless steps. Just mutual tolerance,
search of wise compromises will help to provide harmonious symbiosis
of East and West. Unfortunately, now government hesitations round
the searching of national idea more closely resembles "Yaroslavna’s
Lament" than a constructive dialogue.
The specifics of relationship between Russia & Ukraine
On the one hand, globalization rubs away borders, mixes national
cultures, and on the other evokes in nations the reverse reaction that
put forward the barriers to defend their own national identity. As a
result, national feeling of some part of national elite and society
in general becomes keener, and it stimulates turning to cultural &
historical background while democratic freedoms permit learning anew
pages of history.
Nevertheless, age-old historical traditions of East-European countries,
previous directions of their economical, political and cultural
development hold these countries and nations in some kind of gripe.
In reality, Ukraine is strongly tied with Russia because of cultural
& historical similarities of both nations. And these ties have a
tendency to strengthen. Russia is not against of such development of
events, and there’s no necessity to see its intention to recreate the
USSR. Of course, the foreign policy of Russia is determined by its
geopolitical status and dynamics of world international relations,
by national interests. The space of the national consciousness does
not coincide with the borders of the state, but has its own borders
expressed by the proper characters and fixed at subconscious level
in national archetypes. For safety of this space and possibility to
be presented there, Russia is ready for some losses.
The problem of bilingualism in Ukraine has long been a way of
speculating on the awareness of the Ukrainian population. And the
question of Russian-spoken population can’t be ignored not only
because it is one of the most painful corns of Russian-Ukrainian
relations but because without deep insight into the peculiarities of
identity at least half of the population of the country, it’s hard
to discuss perspectives of forming in Ukraine national identity,
Ukrainian political nation.
Ukrainians are state building nation that created its sovereign
country where occupies chief place of "title" ethnos. But along with
it important to realize that all "traditional" national minorities,
who are the citizens of Ukraine regardless of ethnical origin, religion
and political sympathies, are essential constituents of community that
is usually named as "civic" or "political" nation. In Ukraine, as in
other European countries relations between majorities and minorities
need great efforts for harmonization.
Particularly let’s mark out the problem of Crimean Tatars not as
"national minority" in traditional sense of this term but as nation
that developed at the territory of Crimea. Therefore, Ukrainian state
and Ukrainian society are totally responsible for revival, preservation
and further developing of its ethno cultural identity. Securing all
the political, economical, social cultural rights of this nation is
regulated by separate legislative acts which are approved by Supreme
Council (Verkhovna Rada).
Moreover, in modern Ukraine we may mark new identities which
are called "biethnors". They attribute their membership at both
nationalities at the same time. The choice of a language for
everyday communication doesn’t immediately depend upon this national
self-identification. Besides, for most of the population of Ukraine
the Russian language is more convenient for communication.
Ukraine’s cultural schizophrenia has roots deep in its tortured
past which spans more than a thousand years of bloodshed, foreign
domination and internal divisions. In the tenth century Kyiv was at
the centre of the first Slavic State, Kyivan Rus, – the birthplace
of both Ukraine and Russia. Then Tartar invaders came from the east,
followed by Polish and Lithuanian armies from the west. For part of
the 18th century and all of the 19th, Ukraine was absorbed into the
Russian Empire. The 20th century was the most brutal, with two famines
that killed more than eight million Ukrainians, and two World Wars. By
the 1950s soviet power buried both Russian and Ukrainian culture,
and buried its ancient heritage. The Soviet’s final insult was the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster, whose death toll still mounts.
"Great Ukrainians" as the tribute to fashion…
A year ago the project "Great Ukrainians" became a real challenge for
society as it aroused a great wave of discussions & heated debates
in the country. This project became at the top of the popularity in
all the countries where it was realized so Ukraine was no exception.
The fact that the project was presented as show wasn’t a secret from
the very beginning. Why must we view the winner through paradigm
of national idea? It’s too early to make such a project as it is
destined for the stable country. The greatest variant would have
been the project "100 Greatest Ukrainians" without a winner. For what
purpose organize this championship? Who shot more people or who wrote
more books? Where is common denominator?
However, it became the tribute to fashion, informational
fever… Seeking for criteria of greatness wasn’t crowned with
successful definition of these criteria. Inhabitation at Ukrainian
lands, Ukrainian origin, language, nationality, self-identification,
proof by time etc. The impact of the personality on historical and/or
cultural development of Ukraine or active and conscious popularization
of Ukraine had also been taken into account.
Probably, the project was created to switch people’s attention
from political scene to cultural? As it was foreseen the project
made a great resonance but even if one of the purposes was to
meet people head-on, it failed. Generally, question about national
self-identification is really interesting because in cultures similar
to Ukrainian, when intellectuals built other more developed cultures
(German-, English- or Russian spoken), a point of great nicety of
whom to consider stranger and whom not is risen…
Did the project have on purpose some manipulative tasks? It’s no
news. Besides, most of informational messages include manipulative
aspect. Communication in some sense is manipulation itself. But
yet another question whether it is oriented towards form-factor
or devastation.
Project was aimed at washing out Ukrainian identity. It’s a well-known
fact that voting calculations were not transparent because of the
system of voting. Besides, someone enabled a transit server that was
not found from times of presidential elections of 2004. It means that
it’s favorable for somebody. More is coming! Elections soon!
Anyway, we did it! In conclusion, Ukrainian identity dominated at
the level of first dozen: T. Shevchenko, I. Franko, L.Ukrainka,
B. Khmelnytskyi, and G. Skovoroda. No doubt they are considered to
be symbols of "ukrainstva". Here are also new persons-symbols as
V. Chornovil and S. Bandera that are related to national liberation
movement. Yaroslav Mudryi became especially significant person
as became uniting link. He was a great Slav, rusich. And rusichi
are ancestry of both Ukrainians and Russians. Most rating – are
personalities who represented Ukrainian idea. Persons who clearly
represent Ukrainian identity dominate among cultural and art workers,
writers, statesmen and politicians, scientists. And forming identities
is completely dependent on these spheres!
Unfortunately, "canonization" of OUN-UPA looks as attempt to soap the
eyes and draw away Ukrainian nation from social-economical problems at
the background of total political crisis. It’s a mistake to make such
contradictory persons as Bandera, Shuhevich or Mazepa national heroes,
thrusting myths and vague ideas. Or do we want hardly recovered from
soviet historical myth creating to run to another extreme? The citizen
of Ukraine Vladimir Ushenko has the right for personal opinion. But
subjective point of view of V. Ushenko, turning into the decree of
the President about conferment of Hero of Ukraine to Roman Shuhevich
becomes the state position. By the way, contradictory and strange
especially if we remember the third point of the "Act of renewal of
Ukrainian state" that was announced by OUN in June 1941. "Renewal
Ukrainian state will be closely cooperate with National-Socialistic
Great Germany that is under the direction of Adolph Hitler creates new
order in Europe and the world…" Thus, V. Ushenko is the president
of the whole country so must take into consideration the pain of
veterans of the Great Patriotic war and their posterity.
Sometimes it seems that politicians are more succeeded in creation
of historical myths than application of the achievements in every
day’s life. But politicians often ignore the fact that historical
myths refer to really delicate categories, almost copying the way of
propagandistic machine most of the totalitarian countries.
In 1920-1930 the course for total polonization on the territories of
Rech’ Pospolita also seemed to be right and logical. But what were the
consequences? Why not to suggest human mutual understanding according
to which every warrior is a victim of circumstances? Never the half
of Ukraine who was brought up on other values, in other ideological
surroundings will accept OUN – UPA as heroes of the nation. To ignore
it means to ruin state system of Ukraine. Because how to explain
great-grandson of soviet soldier, who died fighting with soldiers
OUN-UPA why Bandera is the national hero? Or how to explain all these
events to grandsons of common peasants who lived in Western Ukraine
and couldn’t understand why these "heroes" slaughtered hundreds of
families?! Witnesses are still alive…
Who will remain Stepan Bandera in the history of Ukraine is a question
of time. But no doubt people won’t learn it from the TV shows,
propaganda spots and even not with the help of well coordinated
voting of today’s supporters of integral nationalists. Will he be a
typical representative of his difficult time – the kind of terrorist
of XX century who struggled for his idea as he understood it? Or the
situational ally of Nazi Germany? A not easy question that can’t be
just brought to the idea is he worth being the great Ukrainian? Surely,
there is a great amount of personages with much more contradictory
reputation in Ukrainian history.
There should be a frank discussion of what we are and who we
became. Egoism, political interests and narrow-mindedness of
political leaders often make people be in the captivity of offence
of oppressed nation. And it’s still alive although it’s time to
get rid of it. It’s time to reject Soviet mental, political, and
economic legacy. What is the way of the country that falsifies its
own history? Let’s look at our history more attentively – it’s the
history of the strong nation. Great nation can forgive. And it’s not
afraid of somebody to oppress it. If we’ll create good conditions
for coexistence of all nations in the country, its heart – Ukrainian
ethnos won’t disappear. They are millions, and won’t betray their
mother tongue. If the country will have true elite, and it will speak
Ukrainian, nothing will happen with this country ever. Nothing will
be solved with administrative measures. Ukrainization will lead to
reserve effect. It’s essential to create conditions for functioning
not only Ukrainian but Greek, Armenian, Jewish and many others
cultures. Civic identity will be created when being the citizen of
Ukraine will be pleasant for all ethnos, and synergy of such progress
will be advantageous first of all for Ukrainian ethnos.
The specifics of relationship between Russia & Poland
Being intertwined in European history, they always characterized
by opposition and fight for predominance in the region of joint
residence. Naturally, that national consciousness of Russians and
Poles had been forming their pictures of each other as the inalienable
elements, absorbing psychologically those complexes, stratifications,
which were generated by collisions, direct conflicts. Two Slavonic
nations have created two cultures, two great cultures, reflecting
two posing of the Slavonic soul, joined by the high ideals of humanism.
Thus the ideal of freedom is a deep, fundamental layer of Polish
national consciousness. As for the long time Russian Empire had
been the oppressor of Polish freedom, it led to the creation of
stereotype perception of Russians, inherited steady Russia "negative
charge". These prejudices are very strong today.
As an example, let’s remember the time when Poland entered NATO. After
events in Yugoslavia (March-April 1999) the relationship between
Russia and Poland became very cold. Dozens of journalists, diplomats
and businessmen were sent from Warsaw. The answer of Russia was the
same. Late 90-s can be characterized as time of the great tension
between Russia and Poland.
During the visit of Vladimir Putin to Poland in February 2002 there
were signed several important agreements. Both of the leaders expressed
the wish to work on the perspective.
One of the notifications is rather popular opinion among Poles that
Russia doesn’t listen to anyone and must repent of all the actions
related to Poland. However, after taking off the security list, Russia
sent Poland a lot of archives, concerning Katin. From the other side
somehow among Russians still exists confidence that Poles are nation
that always plays the role of victim.
The next sticking point is that Poland argues with Russia about
the influence at Ukraine. Moreover, Poland is considered to be the
lawyer of Ukraine in European issues. Although according to the one
of the Polish experts, "In context of entering in European society,
Poland must count the circumstance, that Polish politics in attitude
to Ukraine must be the part of broadly understood Eastern politics
of EU"…
Thus there are still no deep connections between Russians and Poles
yet. On the one hand, they are under pressure of the load of the past,
and from the other – extirpate the imperatives of pragmatism, making
a spiritual cognation as an instrumental beginning in realization of
own interests.
To avoid civilizational crushes it’s important to develop
different programmes, to strengthen the tights of regions – in
general cooperate. And the main point of cooperation and objective
reason for optimization of connections between three countries is
economics. For instance, Poles are confident that they are part of
western civilization. This feeling caused after some time almost
absolute absence of impatience to Germany.
Thus we should set and follow good examples. We should learn how to
maintain the balance and keep the harmony of interests. Keeping good
relations with foreign countries and international communities is the
essential part of every governmental policy, which leads to cooperation
in preserving peace and setting international conflicts through
negotiations. No individual or country can stand alone. In today’s
world money and people can travel across borders in unprecedented
ways. I personally do not believe in a crash of civilizations. I
believe that all people have a common hope for a better future for
their children, for security for their parents, for peace in the
world. Only if we are together we are strong. Only when we are united,
we are powerful. It’s just important to understand that Ukraine is
not a pro-American or pro-Russian state but solely in custody of
pro-Ukrainian ideas.
Back, to the future…
Young republics come apart the same way as thousand-year reichs. And
economical life of society will exist until at least one person is
alive. Crisis itself isn’t as terrible as after crisis depression
which is just as stagnation and slow convalescence lasts much
longer. Worse that may happen is that we won’t conclude lessons
of the crisis, won’t realize WHAT exactly society and state did
wrong. Under stable and durable work of government we have a chance to
become economically developed country, with great social sphere, good
ecology and infrastructure. Country that has something to suggest other
countries; that lives in peace with neighbors and can accept different
game rules sticking to one’s interests. We have what to aim and so
it’s essential to learn experience of successful countries that also
some time began from the very beginning… It’s not a shame to learn
by own mistakes but it’s shameful to pretend that everything is ok,
step by step turning the country into the realm of distorting mirrors.
Ukraine has all the chances to become successful European country,
reserving to oneself unique national identification. The country has
enough resources, quite good geographical location on the world map,
wide tourist potential. The main problem is that we don’t know how
to handle with all these.
Furthermore, society must realize that national idea is not a mix of
historical symbols and attractive slogans but common goal and long-term
strategy of state development. If we press towards euro integration
processes, national idea will become uniting in case if will be enough
attractive for the total majority of population, not dependent on
nationality, social status and place of residence. Besides, it must be
based at system of national values, historical experience of winnings
and defeats. When don’t know what way to go, it’s easy to get lost. I
have great confidence that under present position of chess at the
board of the world, our state may find itself off side just as to
be crowned. If our strong leader (read – player) competently plays
the game… So it’s more than important for self-identification of
the citizen and for feeling pride for capability of answering the
question who is he: the representative of prosperous country or poor
relative of Europe?
The enlarged European Union is part of a rapidly and radically changing
world that needs to find new stability. Europe is affected by upheavals
on other continents – whether it is the resurgence of religious in the
Islamic world, disease and famine in Africa, unilateral tendencies in
North America, economic crisis in Latin America or the population
explosion in Asia. Europe must not only concentrate on its own
development but also be flatly involved in globalization.
One of the greatest effects of globalization is that we are
all affected by different conflicts, mostly internal. Today’s
greatest challenges are terrorism, international organized crime,
human/drugs/weapon trafficking, environmental pollution/degradation
and the spread of infectious diseases. Local, internal and regional
conflicts are global problem, global challenge. Our common efforts
for peace, reconciliation and development are an important part of
the security policy. By helping others, we are helping ourselves.
Human rights are the cornerstone of modern civilization, and
respect for human rights has improved greatly in Ukraine since it
gained independence. This development brings Ukraine into the global
community of shared values. As human trafficking constitutes denial
of all fundamental human rights, it’s a threat to the stability
and security of our world today. So we should work more closely to
strengthen police cooperation.
It’s vital to give support to networking, to exchanges and to the
younger generations. Not so long ago Ukraine became a member of the
Bologna process so we share the goal of creating a common European
area for higher education. I believe that we should strengthen the
practical cooperation between universities, research institutions etc.
It’s now 23 years since the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, a
catastrophe that caused terrible suffering in Ukraine, and also hit
neighboring regions. This tragedy must remind us that every of us,
every strong country, every fearless state is vulnerable, and that
many of the gravest challenges can be met if we stand together. We
must all strive for ensuring that such accidents never happen again.
In the wake of the recent events in the Caucasus, global crisis,
opinions and moods in Europe are changing regularly. However,
modern war is not just tanks and bombs. Modern war is also when your
financial markets are ruined, when foreign investments leave your
country and when you become a target for international community. We
need to change our mindset about what is the real war today. Absence
of mutual understanding in global sense and unconquerable desire to
have everything and at once is the main reason for absence of positive
results in the work over foremost projects in different spheres of
society and also most of the conflicts and wars.
Against a background of all global events, we must always save time
to forgive and ask for forgiveness. A real future can be built only
on the basis of the real past. The more responsible our approach
to the history of our countries will be, the quicker we will reach
understanding. So time to time let’s ask ourselves, what we have
already done for this?