Press Release

Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic Future: International Forum

On 30-31 March 2009, Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic Future: International Forum III was held in Brussels. The two-day conference brought together key government and non-government representatives of Ukraine, the European Union, Canada and the United States to examine Ukraine’s readiness to assume a place in the Euro-Atlantic world. To facilitate the said examination, the event ran a number of plenary and focus sessions, and "special" functions. In total, nearly thirty speakers addressed the Forum proceedings, among them: high-ranking Ukrainian diplomats from the NATO, EU, US and Canada offices (including the Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada Ihor Ostash); members of the Ukrainian Parliament (representatives of the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc Serhij Shevchuk and Andrij Shevchenko); such public figures as Yuri Scherbak and Oleh Rybachuk; Canadian Ambassador to Ukraine Daniel Caron; members of the European Parliament (including Vice-Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Michael Gahler, former President of Lithuania Vytautus Landsbergis, and a veteran European politician Janusz Onyszkiewich); acting US Ambassador to Ukraine James Petit; and representatives of influential international NGOs.

Ihor Kozak, Director (International Relations) of the League of Ukrainian Canadians, also participated in the Forum, simultaneously acting as a spokesperson for the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. During his presentation, he provided constructive feedback and concrete recommendations to both the state of Ukraine and NATO member states.

First, he highlighted the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ outstanding cooperation with their NATO counterparts and significant positive accomplishments in their work towards achieving NATO standards. At the same time, Ihor Kozak delivered criticism of the current political leadership in Ukraine for: not doing enough to dissolve anti-NATO old Soviet myths and new Russian propaganda; not being able to put aside their political differences and to represent Ukraine with a unified front; and not maximizing Ukraine’s strategic geopolitical positioning and support of New Europe, NGOs and the Diaspora in their negotiations with the West.

During his speech, Ihor Kozak also demonstrated that support from Western democracies is inadequate, with the main reason behind it being Old Europe’s desire not to irritate Russia. At the same time, in light of the latest developments in the Caucasus region and Russia’s natural gas sabotage of Europe, it should become clear to the West that the new-old Russian threat is out there and on the rise, and thus, it is in Germany's, France's and others' own best national interests to incorporate Ukraine into their Euro-Atlantic sphere as soon as possible, rather than later ask the familiar question “Who lost Ukraine?” To this end, those NATO member states that, de facto, block Ukraine’s NATO membership were asked, notwithstanding a number of real (or imaginary) obstacles on Ukraine's road to Euro-Atlantic membership, to take a much more proactive (as opposed to their current indecisive) approach and to welcome Ukraine as soon as possible - in a similar manner the West had previously embraced Poland or Romania and is presently welcoming Albania and Croatia. Of note is the statement that Canada should (upon Ukraine’s invitation) start acting as a moderator in Ukraine’s talks with those NATO powers that currently oppose its NATO membership. Given Canada’s geopolitical importance and most positive international reputation, its leadership role within the North-Atlantic Alliance, and its long-standing history of solid positive co-operation with Ukraine, Canada is definitely well positioned to assume this important role.      

In conclusion, a tough issue was raised: Playing the role of devil’s advocate, one has to consider what alternatives Ukraine would have, should it be continuously denied NATO membership. Considering the real Russian threat and the lack of other non-NATO plausible alternatives, Ukraine could end up in a situation, where it’s only option is to re-establish its nuclear status. It is important to fully appreciate, however, that neither Ihor Kozak nor the organizations he was representing were encouraging Ukraine to pursue this route; he was simply hypothesizing reasonable options, which are not many for Ukraine to follow.

League of Ukrainian Canadians

National Executive