Europe's Responsibility in Causing the East-West Split in Ukraine
ISHIGOOKA Ken / Journalist
May 20, 2014
Ukraine is standing on the brink of dissolution. It is the greatest crisis since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has the potential of dragging the entire world into war. In spite of this fact, Western views on Russia and Ukraine are far too simplistic and smack of ignorance. So much so that it gives off the impression that the West is grossly underestimating the situation.
Let me start by pointing out that there is hardly ever a case in international relations where the issue is a simple matter of right or left, where one side is unilaterally right and the other side unilaterally wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes. This is an idea that seems obvious enough to people in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, where the spirit of moderation is respected. However, there is a strong tendency in Europe and the United States of seeking to come to grips with matters by molding them into an argument between right and wrong based on a dualistic idea of good and bad.
Led by Western media, the latest incident has often been explained in terms of a simple pattern of confrontation, as a battle between Ukrainian citizens who have stood up for "freedom and democracy" and the "evil empire" of Russia that seeks to suppress them. Newsweek Japan carried articles titled: "Putin the Great – The God of Destruction Seeking to Break the Global Order" and "The Real Dangers of the 'Tyrant' Confronting the West." But is Vladimir Putin really a "god of destruction" out to unsettle the global order? Could he really be a "tyrant"? Surely, the situation shouldn't be reduced to such a simplistic interpretation. My doubts have lingered on with regard to this point.
Last December, Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych made a stunning move, refusing to sign the "Association Agreement" that was to strengthen his country's ties with the European Union. This marked the beginning of the political upheaval. The President explained that while his country needed several hundred billion euros in funding to raise the quality of its production facilities and products to meet EU standards, support from the EU remained in the order of several million euros and was far from enough. At the time, the International Monetary Fund had suspended its loans to Ukraine with no prospect in sight for a resumption of negotiations. Furthermore, Ukraine's national debt had reached 80 percent of its Gross Domestic Product at 146 billion dollars. The country had 65 billion dollars in short-term debt, with only 20 billion dollars in foreign reserves. Russia had been stalling on its payments for gas imported from Ukraine, and the amount was expected to reach 6 billion to 7 billion dollars by the end of this year.
While there was much talk about the "rosy dream" of joining the EU, core EU members Germany and France were not planning any major aid packages for Ukraine. Honestly speaking, most people had not taken Ukrainian membership too seriously. It was certain to be a lengthy process, and it was not at all clear whether it would ever be consummated. In other words, there was no need to hurry.
The biggest obstacle was that Ukraine's basic idea of economic union differed from Europe's. The idea of a united Europe was founded on the reconciliation between Germany and France – or the inclusion of Germany – in the hope of preventing another world war and of reviving the glory of Europe. Detailed rules were laid out around the European principle, and there was a strict doctrine of refusing membership to countries that failed to live up to the standards. In contrast, Asia and Eurasia are regions where diverse climates and geography overlap with considerable complexity, resulting in a broad variety of ethnicity, religion, economic standards, statehood and degree of national unity. It is impossible to lay down standards and rules that govern all these aspects, and in turn requires a certain looseness. A myriad of organizations aimed at political and economic integration exist independently of each other, and it is normal for a country to hold multiple memberships in several organizations. From a European perspective, this would hardly amount to a union.
Over the course of the latest political crisis, President Putin suggested Ukraine could participate as an observer in his proposed Customs Union – known otherwise as the Eurasian Union. In addition, he proposed creating a system of three-party consultations with Europe for the transition period. On his part, President Yanukovych expressed Ukraine's wish to join both the EU and Russia's Customs Union. Yet the European response was to press Ukraine to make an either-or choice between Europe and Russia. A particularly hardline stance was maintained by proponents of the so-called "New Europe," such as Catherine Ashton, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for foreign affairs, former Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski and Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite. In retrospect, they had been completely oblivious to the dangers of drawing a dividing line between Europe and Russia.
Moreover, the true intention behind President Putin's "Eurasian Union" is not about reviving the Soviet Union. It was envisioned as a countermeasure against China, a powerful nation that continues to forge ahead with remarkable success. Ukraine is not even the cornerstone of that Eurasian Union. Russia fully understands that Ukraine cannot be integrated with Central Asia.
The political turmoil in Ukraine has revealed the parochial nature of Western thinking, in which values other than their own are either dismissed or rejected, and has highlighted the conflict between the Western system of universal values and non-Western values based on exceptions and geopolitical considerations. Russia certainly deserves to be criticized for rough handling the issue in defiance of international rules. However, Europe must take most of the responsibility for causing the east-west split in Ukraine by unilaterally thrusting its brand of "universal values" on the country in the name of "freedom and democracy."
Ken Ishigooka is a journalist and former special editor of the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
Let me start by pointing out that there is hardly ever a case in international relations where the issue is a simple matter of right or left, where one side is unilaterally right and the other side unilaterally wrong. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes. This is an idea that seems obvious enough to people in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, where the spirit of moderation is respected. However, there is a strong tendency in Europe and the United States of seeking to come to grips with matters by molding them into an argument between right and wrong based on a dualistic idea of good and bad.
Led by Western media, the latest incident has often been explained in terms of a simple pattern of confrontation, as a battle between Ukrainian citizens who have stood up for "freedom and democracy" and the "evil empire" of Russia that seeks to suppress them. Newsweek Japan carried articles titled: "Putin the Great – The God of Destruction Seeking to Break the Global Order" and "The Real Dangers of the 'Tyrant' Confronting the West." But is Vladimir Putin really a "god of destruction" out to unsettle the global order? Could he really be a "tyrant"? Surely, the situation shouldn't be reduced to such a simplistic interpretation. My doubts have lingered on with regard to this point.
Last December, Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych made a stunning move, refusing to sign the "Association Agreement" that was to strengthen his country's ties with the European Union. This marked the beginning of the political upheaval. The President explained that while his country needed several hundred billion euros in funding to raise the quality of its production facilities and products to meet EU standards, support from the EU remained in the order of several million euros and was far from enough. At the time, the International Monetary Fund had suspended its loans to Ukraine with no prospect in sight for a resumption of negotiations. Furthermore, Ukraine's national debt had reached 80 percent of its Gross Domestic Product at 146 billion dollars. The country had 65 billion dollars in short-term debt, with only 20 billion dollars in foreign reserves. Russia had been stalling on its payments for gas imported from Ukraine, and the amount was expected to reach 6 billion to 7 billion dollars by the end of this year.
While there was much talk about the "rosy dream" of joining the EU, core EU members Germany and France were not planning any major aid packages for Ukraine. Honestly speaking, most people had not taken Ukrainian membership too seriously. It was certain to be a lengthy process, and it was not at all clear whether it would ever be consummated. In other words, there was no need to hurry.
The biggest obstacle was that Ukraine's basic idea of economic union differed from Europe's. The idea of a united Europe was founded on the reconciliation between Germany and France – or the inclusion of Germany – in the hope of preventing another world war and of reviving the glory of Europe. Detailed rules were laid out around the European principle, and there was a strict doctrine of refusing membership to countries that failed to live up to the standards. In contrast, Asia and Eurasia are regions where diverse climates and geography overlap with considerable complexity, resulting in a broad variety of ethnicity, religion, economic standards, statehood and degree of national unity. It is impossible to lay down standards and rules that govern all these aspects, and in turn requires a certain looseness. A myriad of organizations aimed at political and economic integration exist independently of each other, and it is normal for a country to hold multiple memberships in several organizations. From a European perspective, this would hardly amount to a union.
Over the course of the latest political crisis, President Putin suggested Ukraine could participate as an observer in his proposed Customs Union – known otherwise as the Eurasian Union. In addition, he proposed creating a system of three-party consultations with Europe for the transition period. On his part, President Yanukovych expressed Ukraine's wish to join both the EU and Russia's Customs Union. Yet the European response was to press Ukraine to make an either-or choice between Europe and Russia. A particularly hardline stance was maintained by proponents of the so-called "New Europe," such as Catherine Ashton, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for foreign affairs, former Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski and Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite. In retrospect, they had been completely oblivious to the dangers of drawing a dividing line between Europe and Russia.
Moreover, the true intention behind President Putin's "Eurasian Union" is not about reviving the Soviet Union. It was envisioned as a countermeasure against China, a powerful nation that continues to forge ahead with remarkable success. Ukraine is not even the cornerstone of that Eurasian Union. Russia fully understands that Ukraine cannot be integrated with Central Asia.
The political turmoil in Ukraine has revealed the parochial nature of Western thinking, in which values other than their own are either dismissed or rejected, and has highlighted the conflict between the Western system of universal values and non-Western values based on exceptions and geopolitical considerations. Russia certainly deserves to be criticized for rough handling the issue in defiance of international rules. However, Europe must take most of the responsibility for causing the east-west split in Ukraine by unilaterally thrusting its brand of "universal values" on the country in the name of "freedom and democracy."
Ken Ishigooka is a journalist and former special editor of the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
ウクライナの東西分裂の招いた欧州の責任
石郷岡 健 / ジャーナリスト
2014年 5月 20日
ウクライナは国家存続の淵に立たされている。ソ連崩壊以後の最大の危機でもあり、世界全体を戦争に巻き込む危険性をはらんでいる。にもかかわらず、欧米のロシアおよびウクライナを見る目は、あまりにも単純で、理解不足で、事態を見くびっているという印象をぬぐいきれない。
最初に指摘したいのは、国際関係では、右か左か、どちらかが、一方的に正しく、他方が一方的に間違っているというケースはまれだ。真実は両極端の中間にある。中庸の精神を尊ぶ日本やアジアでは当然と考えられている思想だが、欧米では善悪の二元論をもとに、勧善懲悪論で押し切って物事を理解しようとする傾向が強い。
今回の事件でも、欧米メディアを中心に、「自由と民主主義」に向けて立ち上がるウクライナ市民とそれを抑圧する「悪の帝国」ロシアの戦いという単純な対立構図で説明されることが多かった。ニューズウィーク誌（日本語版）では「世界秩序の破壊神 プーチン大帝」｢欧米と敵対する『暴君』の本当の危険度｣などの見出しの記事を掲載した。しかし、プーチンは本当に世界秩序の破壊神なのか？ 本当に「暴君」なのか？こんな単純な理解でいいのかという疑問は消えなかった。
昨年12月、ウクライナのヤヌコーヴィッチ大統領はＥＵとの関係強化の協定（「連合協定」）の署名を突然、拒否した。ウクライナ政変の始まりである。ヤヌコーヴィッチは、その理由を次のように説明した。「ウクライナの生産設備や製品の品質をＥＵ基準にあわせるためには数千億ユーロの資金が必要だ。しかし、ＥＵからの支援は数億ユーロの規模で、とても足りない」 当時、ＩＭＦ（国際通貨基金）からの対ウクライナ融資は止まっており、交渉再開のメドも立っていなかった。さらに、ウクライナの債務は１４６０億㌦で、国内総生産（ＧＤＰ）の８０％に達していた。外貨準備は２００億㌦しかなく、短期債務は６５０億㌦。ロシアから輸入ガス代金の支払いは滞り、今年末には６０～７０億㌦に達する見通しだった。
しきりに、ＥＵ加盟による「バラ色の夢」が語られていたが、ＥＵの中核である独仏はウクライナへの大型援助は考えておらず、本音をいえば、ほとんどの人がウクライナのＥＵ加盟を本気には考えていなかった。ウクライナのＥＵ加盟は長いプロセスで、実現されるかどうかも分からない。急ぐ必要はなかったのである。
最大の問題は、経済統合に関する基本的理念が、欧州とは違っていたことだ。欧州統合の思想の根底にあるのは、世界大戦を繰り返さないという独仏の和解（もしくはドイツの取り込み）であり、輝かしい欧州の再生である。欧州理念を中心に細かいルールを築き、規範にあわないものは組織に入れないという厳しい原則が存在していた。これに対し、アジア・ユーラシア地域では、多様な気候と地勢が複雑に折り重なっており、民族、宗教、経済水準、国家形態や国家統一状況などが様々に異なっている。すべてを律する基準や規則はあり得ず、ルーズにならざるをえないのだ。多種多様な統合組織が乱立し、どの国も複数の組織に重複加盟するのが普通だ。欧州から見れば、とても統合とはいえない。
今回の政変騒ぎでも、プーチン大統領は自らが主張する関税同盟（もしくはユーラシア同盟）にウクライナはオブザーバー資格参加ではどうかと発言していた。さらに、過渡期の体制として、欧州との３者協議機関を作ったらどうかとも提案していた。そして、ヤヌコーヴィッチ大統領はＥＵと関税同盟の双方に加盟したいと発言していた。これに対し、欧州側は、あくまでも、欧州かロシアか、どちらかを選べとの２者択一を迫った。特に、ＥＵのアシュトン副委員長（外交担当）、ポーランドのクワシニエフスキ元大統領、リトアニアのグリバウスカイテ大統領の３人の“新欧州勢力”が強硬な立場だった。結果的に、欧州とロシアの間に分断線を作る危うさを全く理解していなかった。
付け加えるならば、プーチン大統領の「ユーラシア同盟」設立の真意は、ソ連邦の再生ではない。目覚ましい発展を進める大国・中国への対抗策である。ウクライナはユーラシア統合の要ではない。ウクライナが中央アジアとは統合できないことは良く分かっている。
結局、ウクライナの政変を通して見えてくるのは、欧米世界の他の価値観を認めない、もしくは、受け入れないという狭い考え方で、欧米流の普遍的価値観と非欧米流の特殊・地政学的価値観の対立である。勿論、ロシアの荒っぽい、国際ルール無視の行動も批判されねばならない。しかし、「自由と民主主義」名のもとに、一方的に“普遍的価値観”を押し付け、ウクライナの東西分裂を招いた欧州の責任は大きいといわざるを得ない。
（筆者は毎日新聞社専門編集委員。）
最初に指摘したいのは、国際関係では、右か左か、どちらかが、一方的に正しく、他方が一方的に間違っているというケースはまれだ。真実は両極端の中間にある。中庸の精神を尊ぶ日本やアジアでは当然と考えられている思想だが、欧米では善悪の二元論をもとに、勧善懲悪論で押し切って物事を理解しようとする傾向が強い。
今回の事件でも、欧米メディアを中心に、「自由と民主主義」に向けて立ち上がるウクライナ市民とそれを抑圧する「悪の帝国」ロシアの戦いという単純な対立構図で説明されることが多かった。ニューズウィーク誌（日本語版）では「世界秩序の破壊神 プーチン大帝」｢欧米と敵対する『暴君』の本当の危険度｣などの見出しの記事を掲載した。しかし、プーチンは本当に世界秩序の破壊神なのか？ 本当に「暴君」なのか？こんな単純な理解でいいのかという疑問は消えなかった。
昨年12月、ウクライナのヤヌコーヴィッチ大統領はＥＵとの関係強化の協定（「連合協定」）の署名を突然、拒否した。ウクライナ政変の始まりである。ヤヌコーヴィッチは、その理由を次のように説明した。「ウクライナの生産設備や製品の品質をＥＵ基準にあわせるためには数千億ユーロの資金が必要だ。しかし、ＥＵからの支援は数億ユーロの規模で、とても足りない」 当時、ＩＭＦ（国際通貨基金）からの対ウクライナ融資は止まっており、交渉再開のメドも立っていなかった。さらに、ウクライナの債務は１４６０億㌦で、国内総生産（ＧＤＰ）の８０％に達していた。外貨準備は２００億㌦しかなく、短期債務は６５０億㌦。ロシアから輸入ガス代金の支払いは滞り、今年末には６０～７０億㌦に達する見通しだった。
しきりに、ＥＵ加盟による「バラ色の夢」が語られていたが、ＥＵの中核である独仏はウクライナへの大型援助は考えておらず、本音をいえば、ほとんどの人がウクライナのＥＵ加盟を本気には考えていなかった。ウクライナのＥＵ加盟は長いプロセスで、実現されるかどうかも分からない。急ぐ必要はなかったのである。
最大の問題は、経済統合に関する基本的理念が、欧州とは違っていたことだ。欧州統合の思想の根底にあるのは、世界大戦を繰り返さないという独仏の和解（もしくはドイツの取り込み）であり、輝かしい欧州の再生である。欧州理念を中心に細かいルールを築き、規範にあわないものは組織に入れないという厳しい原則が存在していた。これに対し、アジア・ユーラシア地域では、多様な気候と地勢が複雑に折り重なっており、民族、宗教、経済水準、国家形態や国家統一状況などが様々に異なっている。すべてを律する基準や規則はあり得ず、ルーズにならざるをえないのだ。多種多様な統合組織が乱立し、どの国も複数の組織に重複加盟するのが普通だ。欧州から見れば、とても統合とはいえない。
今回の政変騒ぎでも、プーチン大統領は自らが主張する関税同盟（もしくはユーラシア同盟）にウクライナはオブザーバー資格参加ではどうかと発言していた。さらに、過渡期の体制として、欧州との３者協議機関を作ったらどうかとも提案していた。そして、ヤヌコーヴィッチ大統領はＥＵと関税同盟の双方に加盟したいと発言していた。これに対し、欧州側は、あくまでも、欧州かロシアか、どちらかを選べとの２者択一を迫った。特に、ＥＵのアシュトン副委員長（外交担当）、ポーランドのクワシニエフスキ元大統領、リトアニアのグリバウスカイテ大統領の３人の“新欧州勢力”が強硬な立場だった。結果的に、欧州とロシアの間に分断線を作る危うさを全く理解していなかった。
付け加えるならば、プーチン大統領の「ユーラシア同盟」設立の真意は、ソ連邦の再生ではない。目覚ましい発展を進める大国・中国への対抗策である。ウクライナはユーラシア統合の要ではない。ウクライナが中央アジアとは統合できないことは良く分かっている。
結局、ウクライナの政変を通して見えてくるのは、欧米世界の他の価値観を認めない、もしくは、受け入れないという狭い考え方で、欧米流の普遍的価値観と非欧米流の特殊・地政学的価値観の対立である。勿論、ロシアの荒っぽい、国際ルール無視の行動も批判されねばならない。しかし、「自由と民主主義」名のもとに、一方的に“普遍的価値観”を押し付け、ウクライナの東西分裂を招いた欧州の責任は大きいといわざるを得ない。
（筆者は毎日新聞社専門編集委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟