Why do we need Europe?

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) intends to consider the issue of the constitutional crisis in Ukraine as a matter of urgency at its January session. The formal reason was the dubious legitimacy of the course of political reform, in particular the legality of the vote on introducing amendments to the Constitution at the end of December 2003. In general, the situation in the Verkhovna Rada is perceived by many in Europe as evidence of the absence of parliamentary democracy in Ukraine. Obviously, another fact that provoked a negative reaction in the democratic world was the original decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the possibility of Leonid Kuchma running for President once again.

Let us immediately emphasize that the authorities are extremely irritated by such attention from Europeans, while the opposition sees in this an opportunity to bring the course of political struggle into a democratic channel. The mass media controlled by the authorities are trying to discredit the actions of PACE co-rapporteurs Hanne Severinsen and Renate Wohlwend, who arrived in Ukraine to clarify the situation. Public opinion is being prepared in order to cast doubt on the likely results of the discussion of the Ukrainian issue in Strasbourg. In particular, Volodymyr Lytvyn expressed concern that now the issue "about the constitutional crisis in Ukraine" in PACE may "catalyze political confrontation in our state" and that "each side, regardless of any decision or recommendations of the Assembly, will try to interpret this in its own favor."

Two arguments are most widely used: the first — "this is our internal affair and interference is unacceptable," the second — "Europeans are biased, not objective, apply double standards, are ready for PACE to take the side of certain political forces in Ukraine and serve their political interests." It is probably worth considering these arguments.

The current episode in our state's relations with the Council of Europe has, unfortunately, become merely an addition to the problems that have dragged on for many years. In accordance with the Statute of the Council of Europe, "every member of the Council of Europe must necessarily accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realization of the aim of the Council of Europe." Ukraine has still not managed to fully fulfill its obligations to the Council of Europe, including the basic ones related to membership (entirely voluntary) in this organization. This primarily concerns the reform of the political and legal sphere. A significant part of the obligations was fulfilled with delay. In recent years, Ukraine has been subject to monitoring by this organization; this issue has been repeatedly considered at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and relevant resolutions have been adopted.

In particular, in January 2003, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe supported an amendment to the report on freedom of speech in Europe, introduced by Ukrainian journalists, which refers to interference by the Presidential Administration in the activities of the media in Ukraine. The amendment, which became paragraph 6 of the PACE report "Freedom of expression in the media in Europe," states: "In Ukraine, according to numerous testimonies of journalists and the conclusions of parliamentary hearings on freedom of speech and censorship, the Presidential Administration provides instructions to the mass media regarding the coverage of major political events.

In September 2003, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution No. 1622 (2003) "Honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine." It notes that although Ukraine has made noticeable progress since the Assembly adopted Resolution 1262 (2001), Ukraine has not yet fulfilled all its obligations and commitments as a member country of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the Assembly decided to continue the monitoring procedure with respect to Ukraine in close cooperation with the Ukrainian delegation.

The Assembly, in particular, recommended urging the authorities of Ukraine to improve cooperation with the Council of Europe in order to ensure full compliance of Ukrainian legislation and practice with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe, especially the standards guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as full compliance with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. It called on the authorities of Ukraine to carry out a full reform of the prosecutor's office in accordance with the principles and standards of the Council of Europe, as well as to implement, in close cooperation with the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe, the Joint Action Plan on the reform of the prosecutor's office of Ukraine. A separate paragraph of the Assembly's resolution was aimed at intensifying cooperation between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, primarily for the implementation of the Action Plan for the Media, in view of the need to provide assistance to the authorities of Ukraine in their efforts to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms, especially with regard to freedom of speech and the mass media.

Against this background, the attempts of Verkhovna Rada Chairman Lytvyn to assure both PACE representatives and us that Ukraine has fulfilled "almost all" obligations to the Council of Europe, "which confirms the European choice of our country," look unconvincing. After all, we were supposed to fulfill all obligations, and not only formally but also in reality, within a three-year period after acquiring membership, that is, by the end of 1998. A simplified attitude toward the state's international obligations and a lack of self-criticism have long become customary for our partners.

Commitment to democratic European values has been constantly declared by Ukraine. The Law of Ukraine "On the Succession of Ukraine" of September 12, 1991, states: "Ukraine guarantees the ensuring of human rights to every citizen of Ukraine regardless of national affiliation and other characteristics in accordance with international legal acts on human rights." In the Address of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine "To the Parliaments and Peoples of the World" of December 5, 1991, it was emphasized: "Ukraine is building a democratic, legal state whose primary goal is the ensuring of human rights and freedoms." In the President's Message to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in April 2003, it is stated: "Ukraine's aspiration to be recognized as a European state is based on a common understanding and vision of social values with the Western world. The creation of civil society, the development of democratic institutions, and the ensuring of human rights and freedoms are priority national interests of Ukraine, which were defined even at the beginning of its formation as an independent state…" The state has assumed specific obligations regarding the implementation of democratic reforms. They are enshrined, in particular, in such fundamentally important international documents as the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine; the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, etc. The struggle for democracy has been ongoing for thirteen years, and the results are becoming increasingly worse. And this is not only an internal affair, since it affects the interests of partners.

Membership in the Council of Europe and the conclusion of agreements with the European Union and NATO, which in their content are much broader than classical international treaties on cooperation and contain detailed obligations regarding the development of the national political system. This is also what the democratic opposition advocates, which is still limited in its influence on the authorities. We have a phenomenon of modern Ukraine: the authorities' intentions to carry out democratic reforms are most clearly and categorically recorded not in domestic but in international documents. They mark key principled positions. It is also significant that international documents, despite their diplomatic form, contain a much more adequate, truthful assessment of the real level of democracy in Ukraine and the state of its political system. International cooperation provides for certain mechanisms of control over the fulfillment of obligations, which make impossible disinformation and mystification, which are widely present in domestic political practice.

Ukraine is threatened with the suspension of its membership in the Council of Europe until the presidential elections. Other sanctions are also possible, since PACE's position is always taken into account by other democratic international institutions, including the European Union. But even more threatening to it is the consolidation of a non-democratic self-serving regime, which is not only uninterested in real reforms but also cannot coexist with democratic Europe while adhering to civilized norms in domestic policy and its own international obligations.

Of course, Ukraine must remain a full member of the Council of Europe. Its isolation could be used by the authorities for the final imposition of nominal managed democracy. But frank discussion of the current political situation is useful and necessary. And if it is impossible in Kyiv, let it take place in Strasbourg.