Ambassador, what is the UK’s position on events in the Caucasus?  Why such strong opposition to Russian policy and such strong support for Georgia?

Well, it’s clear to us that at the beginning of recent events in Georgia there were miscalculations on both sides.  Russia and Georgia have each claimed that the other side committed war crimes.  Those claims need to be investigated thoroughly and independently.  But there’s been no justification for Russia to invade Georgia, to destroy bridges and infrastructure, and to drive thousands of people out of their homes.  We’ve also seen Russia not sticking to the terms of the cease-fire agreement, which the French EU Presidency organised.  And it’s hard to see how Russia can argue that their troops were acting as peacekeepers when they went marching through Georgia.  There's also the surprising fact that the Russian Federation recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, when they had previously subscribed to UN Resolutions which made clear that Georgia’s territorial integrity should be maintained.  So it’s not surprising that there’s been a strong reaction to Russian actions from the international community.

Aren't such actions by Russia a continuation or a result of double standards in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union?  Especially if we take into account events in Kosovo, which proclaimed its own independence and then had it recognised also in defiance of a UN Resolution…

We’ve heard the comparison made with Kosovo many times. But the situations are quite different.  First, there was the fact that Kosovo was given a high degree of autonomy, which was then taken away from it.  Then there was a history of oppression and ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo, which led to international intervention in 1999.  UN Security Council Resolution 1244 put Kosovo under UN administration, and provided for a political process to decide how the situation should be resolved. That led to a comprehensive proposal by the UN Special Envoy, Martti Ahtisaari, and that proposal was for supervised independence.  The fact that these cases are different  is the view not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole European Union.

Why did the UK take such an anti-Russian position?  Is this about political jealousy? The British Empire never re-established its political influence on the planet, whereas Russia has become a powerful geopolitical centre, a gravedigger of the monopolar world.  Maybe it is about the rise of an unwanted opponent, which should be nipped in the bud?

The idea that we're anti-Russian is completely wrong.  We want to be friends with Russia, and have tried to achieve this.  But the concept of loss of empire is an interesting one, because for any large empire to begin to shrink back to its original boundaries is a painful process.  It hasn’t been easy for any of the world’s great empires, and it’s certainly not proving easy for Russia.  One can debate about whether what Russia has done in Georgia is a sign of strength or not.  You can also debate whether what Russia has done has left it in the stronger position than it was in before, or a weaker one.  The fact is that we're living in an interconnected, globalised world.  These days, when a country takes what others might consider to be a ill-judged or a reckless action, that has wide repercussions.  When the Soviet Union invaded the Czechoslovakia in 1968, nobody worried about the stock market.  Now, since the invasion,  we’ve seen a collapse in the Russian stock market. So I’m not so sure that it’s really turned out all that well for Russia.  Let’s be clear: I don’t welcome a collapse in the stock market anywhere.  What we want is to have strong, stable countries with whom we can trade and with whom we can build relations. That applies to Russia just as it applies to Ukraine.

The ‘Russian bear’ is far away from the UK, but it is very close to Ukraine and close to Europe.  Plus it is sitting on a pipeline which transports gas from Russia.  Russia is sure that it will not undergo international isolation, moreover it can resort to political blackmail in response.  This risks Ukraine becoming directly involved in this conflict, since the pipe is crossing our territory.  Is such development of events possible?

First of all let me say that nobody is trying to isolate Russia.  I don’t think that makes sense. I don’t think it’s helpful. I think that in fact the best way to solve this kind of crisis is not to push people away, but to try and engage with them.  There have been many examples of this happening in international relations.  Germany and France can be taken as a historical example here: great reconciliations come about when people are ready to exchange ideas and co-operate at every level.  We are keen to continue to develop our relationship with Russia, but at the same time we can’t just carry on as business as usual.  As concerns the possibility that Russia could cut off gas or that something could happen to Ukraine, I think it is quite encouraging that Russian leaders as well as Ukrainian leaders have been talking in very calm terms about the relationship between their two countries.  

And do you see that there is a consolidated position of Ukraine on Russian-Georgian conflict?

It’s not really for me to comment on Ukrainian internal politics. What I see in Ukraine is a very lively political debate.  It’s dull for diplomats who live in countries where everybody agrees with each other.

Are you having fun here in Ukraine? Do you understand what is going on in the Ukrainian government?

Well, let me say first of all I’m delighted to be here in Ukraine. What a great country! And I like Kiev too. I think anyone who says they understand everything that’s happening in a country is being a little bit ambitious. I'm learning, and talking to as many people as I can from across the political spectrum.  I think I’m beginning to get a feel for how things work here.  And one of the things I’ve learned is that if I ask five people what will be happening in three weeks’ time, I will get five different answers.  I would just add that one thing which I hear insistently from every side, and which I find reassuring, is that whatever happens it will be resolved  in a democratic and constitutional way.  That’s a very important message.

Many people say that political instability in Ukraine makes it an unpredictable and unreliable partner.  Has this political instability affected bilateral Ukraine-UK relations?  Is there anyone in Ukraine to discuss issues of the British business with?

There are two arguments here.  First, you can’t have too much democracy. A lively political debate is fine.  At the same time, you can have too much political instability. That can make it difficult for the friends of Ukraine to support this country in its European and Euroatlantic aspirations.  For example, there are those who say well, Ukraine isn’t ready for joining EU or NATO and who point to political instability here.  Thus, it would be helpful for Ukraine for a number of reasons - both internal and external - to run a more effective government system.

This brings me to the question of inward investment.  Even at a time of global financial instability there is a huge amount of money looking for a home around the world.  And when you have a political risk premium in a country, that doesn’t help attract that money.  I see a number of problems with the investment climate in Ukraine. The first is the unpredictable court system, or perhaps one might say a too predictable court system.  In theory, of course, you should be completely unable to predict what happens in a court.  But I constantly hear allegations that it is possible to influence the outcome of some courts in Ukraine by things other than good arguments.  Another problem is creating a level playing field for investment.  Finally, the Government needs to demonstrate to potential inward investors that their investments are really welcome.  At the moment all too often you have the impression that it really is something of a matter of indifference to people at local level, at regional level, or even at national level, whether or not they create the conditions to attract inward investment.

Are you deliberately avoiding using the word ‘corruption’?

I often hear that there is a problem of corruption in Ukraine.  I should also make one more point, that in some regions and in some large cities of Ukraine local authorities have created conditions that attract inward investment. This shows that you can create solutions at local and regional levels.  Also, even though conditions for investment are far from easy, British exports to Ukraine are steadily rising.  The United Kingdom is also the fifth largest investor in Ukraine with over 2 billion dollars worth of inward investment in a series of sectors including agriculture, energy, retail, and real estate.  So it's a mixed picture.

Y our colleagues sometimes say that they are approached by businessmen requesting assistance in resolving problems.  Is the British Embassy being approached by British business representatives with similar problems?

I’ll answer that straight away, because the answer is yes.

Some of the post-Soviet countries got leaders like Yuschenko, Saakashvili, and there is a certain category of people calling themselves ‘democrats’ formed around the leaders. In fact, these people are not real democrats; they are simply parasites on democratic rhetoric. Does the UK’s FCO believe that at this stage of development rhetoric will suffice?

Certainly, the British Government doesn’t take a view on who runs other countries.  What is important to us is not who is in change of the country, but that decisions on who is in charge of the country are taken democratically.  I should also point out that Ukraine is actually a leader in the Commonwealth of Independent States when it comes to the freedom of speech and the media, and in terms of having had three completely democratic elections.  That's what makes Ukraine so important.  It's not just a big and promising country in its own right.  But it's also important because it can have a demonstration effect for other countries.  If people in the rest of the CIS can see that the democratic model is successful, that may a big impact on the whole area.

It is said that the conflict in the Caucasus has aggravated  divisions within the EU itself, and this could affect Ukraine's integration plans.  In your opinion, will the conflict help Ukraine get MAP or join the EU?

Well, first of all, it is obvious that Ukraine is a European country.  And the UK believes that the door to EU membership for Ukraine should be open.  When President Yuschenko was in London in May, he and Prime Minister Brown signed a joint statement which said that once Ukraine fulfilled all the required criteria it should be admitted into full membership of the European Union.  That’s why we welcome the Association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine which was reached during the recent EU-Ukraine Summit.  That will bring a whole series of positive effects in terms of integrating Ukraine with the European economy, helping to tackle organised crime and people trafficking, and so on.  There are those who argue that events in Georgia show that we should accelerate the process of joining EU and NATO for Ukraine, and there are those who say that we should slow down as a result.  But I'd say the key question here is what the people of Ukrainian want.  If Ukraine can demonstrate that it’s ready to move to NATO and EU membership, that will be the most effective way of speeding things up.

Nicolas Sarkozy said a significant phrase: ‘The Association Agreement neither opens nor closes any door for Ukraine’.  In the UK’s opinion, will the Association Agreement open the door to EU membership for Ukraine, or is it more a matter of closing it?

I think that the Agreement certainly takes Ukraine closer to that door.  There’s a pretty complicated theological argument within the European Union about whether a number of countries, including Ukraine, should have what is called a membership perspective, ie a firm commitment that they will eventually join the EU.  At the moment, not all member states of the European Union are ready to say with certainty that this will happen.  But the United Kingdom is happy to say that we think Ukraine should become an EU member when it has fulfilled the conditions.

Do you think Ukraine should be given MAP together with Georgia or separately?

It’s natural that the two countries are often considered together, because they’ve applied for MAP at the same time.  But there’s no structural reason why they have to be considered together.  

Is the economic basis of EU association with Ukraine being considered? Maybe it would be better to create a sub-regional economic zone?

It’s an interesting question. The fact is that the European Union is now negotiating with Ukraine a "deep and comprehensive" free trade agreement. This means that economic barriers between the European Union and Ukraine are being gradually removed. This, if you like, is the genius of the EU: it's like a machine for integration of economies.  In Brussels there are regular talks taking place between representatives of Ukraine and the European Union on how best to integrate the economies of the two zones.  They are looking at reaching agreement on an FTA over the next year or so.  Once that agreement is signed, Ukraine will have many of the benefits of being in the European Union.

Based on the negotiations we held, and documents we signed, we are not quite sure about a large number of positive effects.  It is about staffing of our MFA or Ministry of Economy, and also about absence of culture of standing up for the country’s interests per se. Does Ukraine need some external consultants?

I have a lot of respect for the negotiators on the Ukrainian side.  And as concerns the benefits for both sides, history shows that removing barriers to trade between countries almost invariably leads to the creation of increased wealth all round. When countries try to cut themselves off from the rest of the world, we often see poor countries, such as Burma now or Tanzania in the past.  Whereas when countries open themselves to the outside world, they tend to become more wealthy, as we’ve seen in the case of China.  I personally will be delighted if Ukraine becomes as rich and prosperous as possible.  

In its Association Agreement EU did not envisage EU membership for Ukraine.  Similar agreement with Serbia includes such a clause.  Is Serbia's EU membership a payment to Belgrade for Kosovo?

No.

At the moment the issue of facilitating the visa regime, and maybe even agreement on introducing visa-free regime for the Ukrainians visiting the EU, is being looked into.  What is the UK’s position on this issue?

For us it's important to combine effective controls over our borders with allowing people who are keen to visit our country to do that as efficiently as possible.  This is what we call a firm but fair system.  But as concerns the European Union, there was agreement at the summit in Paris to launch a new series of negotiations on visa facilitation and, in the long term, the possibility of visa-free access.

And is the number of Ukrainians visiting the UK increasing or decreasing?

There is an increasing trend in the number of Ukrainians wanting to visit the United Kingdom.  For example, we received about 25 thousand visa applications in 2003, almost 31 thousand in 2005, and over 36 thousand in 2007.  We welcome that.

After we signed the agreement on visa facilitation, the procedure became twice as complicated.  How do you manage to avoid visa scandals in your Embassy in Kiev?  How do you manage to organise the work that well?

It's kind of you to say that our Visa Section is working well.  I'll be happy to pass that on to our colleagues working there.  We are constantly striving to make our visa service better.  In the past few years, we’ve introduced a whole series of completely new systems for issuing visas to the United Kingdom.  And all these new systems have been introduced without any new hold-ups or delays. I hope that we can continue to provide a good service.