UKRAINE: INFORMAL POLITICAL DIRECTORS' MEETING -

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KYIV 004413

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT ALSO FOR EUR/UMB, EUR/RPM, AND EUR/ERA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/28/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV NATO EUN XH ZB ZK UP
SUBJECT: UKRAINE: INFORMAL POLITICAL DIRECTORS' MEETING -
EU/NATO RELATIONS, REGIONAL CHALLENGES

REF: A. STATE 173318

B. LOGSDON/UKRAINE DESK 8/30/06 E-MAIL

C. KIEV 10

KYIV 00004413 001.2 OF 003


Classified By: Ambassador for reasons 1.4(b,d)


1. (C) Summary: In what the Ukrainian MFA would like to see
morph into a regular informal gathering, political directors
from select EU countries and countries of the
"Baltic-Black-Caspian seas" region, along with EUR A/S Fried,
discussed Ukraine's relationship with the EU and NATO and
exchanged views on regional issues. When Ukraine's
representative complained that the EU's European Neighborhood
Policy put Ukraine into a "sandwich" zone between the EU and
NATO, on one side, and Russia on the other, A/S Fried urged
Ukraine to utilize fully all the opportunities available to
it. On regional issues, he pushed back against Ukrainian
worries that Kosovo independence would be exploited as a
precedent for other conflicts. End Summary.


2. (C) Comment: The November 16 meeting, the first of its
kind, was well received and, partly due to A/S Fried's early
acceptance, well attended. The meeting reinforced Ukraine's
interest in playing a regional leadership role. What exactly
prompted DFM Andriy Veselovsky to convene this political
directors' (POLDIR) meeting, however, and its underlying
rationale are unclear, but the initiative has several
possible antecedents. First, the agenda and active
discussion during the October 4-5 Enhanced Partnership in
Northern Europe (E-PINE) gathering in Kyiv (ref A) could have
inspired Veselovsky to hold a similar meeting with
participants expanded beyond Baltic and Nordic participants
and under Ukrainian auspices. Second, as one Kyiv-based
diplomat noted, the gathering had much the same participants
as the Ukraine-sponsored "Community of Democratic Choice"
summit (ref C),except for the Balkan countries. (In
response to A/S Fried's suggestion, however, Veselovsky
promised to consider Balkan countries' inclusion at the next
session. Veselovsky also suggested Belarus might be invited
in the future.) Third, the session on frozen conflicts was
not inconsistent with the proposal that Ambassador at Large
for Conflict Settlement Oleksiy Rybak floated (ref B) for a
permanent "forum for unofficial contacts and consultations
concerning global challenges." End summary/comment.

Format and Purpose
--------------


3. (U) Veselovsky welcomed participants, saying the Ukrainian
MFA had invited directors of the political departments of
Foreign Ministries of "Baltic-Black-Caspian seas" region, the
EU, U.S., and Russia in the hope of holding an informal
"brainstorming" session on matters of mutual concern.
(Later, Veselovsky said Armenia had pulled out at the last
minute and Russia had refused to send anyone other than a
locally assigned diplomatic observer.) The discussion would
be under Chatham House rules and focus on EU and NATO
relations with its neighbors and developing mutual approaches
to issues affecting regional developments such as enhancing
democracy, rule of law, and human rights; transnational
threats; and frozen conflicts.


4. (U) Veselovsky said the Ukrainian MFA hoped to hold such
meetings twice yearly, either as a host or with another
country hosting. Lithuania Undersecretary Zygimantas
Pavilionis later offered also to host and suggested the
gathering be dubbed a "Friends of Ukraine" meeting along the
lines of similar groups in support of countries like
Bulgaria, Moldova, and Georgia. Ukraine had invited
representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Czech
Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Turkey, plus the
European Union (Council, current, Finnish, and next, German,
presidencies) and the U.S. Names of participating political
directors are in para 10.

NATO/EU Relations - A Sandwich Region?
--------------


5. (SBU) Ukrainian MFA Acting Director for Political Affairs
Oleksandr Tsvietkov led the discussion on "macro
developments" and the process of European integration by
noting that the EU "European Neighborhood Policy" (ENP) had
led to creation of a set of second-class countries that did
not have definite prospects for EU membership sandwiched
between the EU and NATO, on the west, and Russia, in the
east. He said his comments were based on two key phrases:
"partners are not the same as allies" and "dialogue is not
the same as multinational planning and exercises." Ukraine

KYIV 00004413 002.2 OF 003


looked forward to establishing a free trade area with the EU
after entering the World Trade Organization (WTO). Ukraine
also hoped to develop a "new European type of association" in
the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or "PCA
plus" that would be govern Ukraine-EU relations over the next
ten to fifteen years.


6. (C) EU members rebutted Tsvietkov's complaint that Ukraine
had been relegated to a "sandwich" zone. Head of the
European Commission Delegation to Ukraine Ian Boag, while
acknowledging that the EU had suspended admission of new
members, argued that the ENP allowed integration of countries
short of actual membership. Emphasis on the unattainable was
injurious to the Ukraine-EU relationship. Representatives of
Germany, Finland, Slovakia, and Lithuania stressed the
importance of Ukraine to the region. German Special Envoy
Hans-Dieter Lucas affirmed that Germany would emphasize the
"eastern dimension" during its EU presidency (starting in
January 2007),while Finnish Director General Pilvi-Sisko
Vierros-Villeneuve noted that an emphasis on the eastern
dimension had been natural for Finland while holding the
current EU presidency. Noting the U.S. takes no view on EU
membership issues, A/S Fried recalled the NATO expansion
process in the early 1990s, when countries had complained
that the NATO Partnership-for-Peace (PfP) program had been a
substitute for actual membership; in fact, PfP had been an
avenue to eventual NATO membership. Countries like Ukraine
should take advantage of all the opportunities presented to
them.

Regional Flashpoints
--------------


7. (C) In the second half of the meeting, Tsvietkov explained
the relevance to Ukraine of the "micro-developments" on the
agenda: the south Caucasus, Belarus, Transnistria,
Balkans/Kosovo, and the Black Sea region. Developments in
these areas could have a direct impact on Ukraine. He
proposed that a special international conference be held on
ways to settle regional conflicts, including in the south
Caucasus. Tsvietkov argued the precedent of Kosovo's
independence could damage existing rules applying to other
conflicts in the region. On Belarus, Tsvietkov urged support
for greater people-to-people contacts. Veselovsky said the
Black Sea should follow the precedent of the Baltic Sea in
not becoming an arena for regional rivalries.


8. (C) The Azerbaijan, Georgian, and Moldovan representatives
focused their comments on the conflicts on or near their
territory: Nagorno-Karabakh for Azerbaijan, South Ossetia and
Abkhazia for Georgia, and Transnistria for Moldova. Georgian
Policy Planning Director Temur Keeklidze and others stressed
the importance of promoting economic development and economic
linkages to conflict areas. A/S Fried said, with respect to
Kosovo, there was no choice of best options and Belgrade had
tacitly recognized Kosovo's future status when it had
excluded Kosovo Albanians from the recently concluded
constitutional referendum. Since Chatham House rules
applied, Fried provided the latest USG perspective on Kosovo.
He also stressed that the international community should not
allow some countries, by insistent repetition, to make the
claim that Kosovo was a precedent for any other conflict.


9. (U) A/S Fried did not have the opportunity clear this
cable.

Participants
--------------


10. (U) Following is the list of respective Foreign
Ministries attendees besides European Commission delegation
head Ian Boag and the Ukrainian hosts. Names of Kyiv-based
diplomats have been omitted.

Azerbaijan
- Mr. Tofig Musayev, Foreign Policy Planning and Strategic
Studies Department
- Mr. Galib Israfilov, Security Affairs Department Division
Director

Bulgaria
- Mrs. Maya Dobreva, Europe III Directorate European States
Department Director
- Mrs. Nina Simova, Foreign Policy Planning and Coordination
Directorate State Expert

Czech Republic
- Mrs. Hana Hubaczkova, First Territorial Section Director
General

KYIV 00004413 003.2 OF 003



Estonia
- Mr. Aivo Orav, Political Department Director General

Finland
- Ms. Pilvi-Sisko Vierros-Villeneuve, Political Department
Director General

Georgia
- Mr. Temur Kekelidze, Political Department Policy Planning
Division Director

Germany
- Mr. Hans-Dieter Lucas, Special Envoy for Eastern Europe,
Central Asia, and Caucasus

Hungary
- Mr. Zsolt Pataki, EU Foreign and Security Policy Department
Director
- Mr. Istvan Ijgyarto, EU Affairs 2nds EU Department
Ambassador

Latvia
- Mr. Juris Poikans, Deputy Political Director

Lithuania
- Mr. Zygimantas Pavilionis, Undersecretary
- Mrs. Vita Naujokaitite, Foreign and Security Policy
Division Attache

Moldova
- Mr. Eugen Vizir, Analysis and Planning Division Director

Poland
- Mr. Wojciech Zajaczkowski, Eastern Policy Department
Director

Romania
- Mr. Shtefan Tinca, Directorate General for Political
Affairs Deputy Director General
- Mrs. Magdalena Florescu Ciobataru, Directorate General for
Political Affairs 3rd Secretary

Slovakia
- Mr. Miroslav Lajcak, Political Affairs Director General

Turkey
- Mr. Selim Kuneralp, Policy Planning Director General


11. (U) Visit Embassy Kyiv's classified website:
www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/kiev.
Taylor