PARAGRAPH 5 HEADLINE

4. Go back to exercises 1 and 2 and answer the questions in them once

again.

5. Find in the text the words meaning:

Новий етап; розвиток українського зовнішньополітичного відом-

ства; Декларація про державний суверенітет України; суб’єкт між-

народного права; здійснювати безпосередні зносини з іншими

державами; укладати договори; обмінюватися дипломатичними,

консульськими, торговельними представництвами; брати участь у

діяльності міжнародних організацій; рівноправний учасник міжна-

родного спілкування; активно сприяти зміцненню загального миру

і міжнародної безпеки; безпосередньо брати участь у загальноєвро-

пейському процесі; європейські структури; прийняття історичного

документу; Акт про незалежність України; поставати; цілком нові

завдання; визнання міжнародним співтовариством; встановлення

дипломатичних відносин; створення ефективної мережі власних ди-

пломатичних і консульських представництв; розбудова повноцінних

двосторонніх відносин з зарубіжними країнами; набуття членства;

утвердження в провідних міжнародних організаціях; досягнення по-

зитивних результатів; закладення основних концептуальних засад

зовнішньої політики України; головний здобуток української дипло-

матії; активно розвивати двостороннє співробітництво; представ-

ництва іноземних держав та міжнародних організацій; закордонна

установа; система МЗС; підготовка нових поколінь українських

дипломатів; навчальний заклад; давати вищу дипломатичну осві-

ту; член міжнародної організації; міжнародно-правовий документ;

основні напрями зовнішньої політики; рекомендаційний документ;

робота уряду; органи виконавчої влади; дипломатичні і консульські

представництва; державні установи; брати участь у реалізації зо-

внішньополітичного курсу.

6. Fill in the blanks in the sentences below with the English equivalents

of the words and word-combinations from exercise 4.

1. In 1990A the Ukrainian _________ service started a new _________

in its development. 2. The Ukrainian Parliament adopted the __________

__ of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. 3. Ukraine became a ___________of

international law and was planning to establish _____________relations

with other states. 4. It was also going to conclude ___________, ex change

diplomatic, _____________ and trade missions, take par t in a _________

___ organizations. 5. Ukraine viewed itself as an _________ participant

of interna tional relations. 6. Ukraine was planning to promote __________

of universal peace and international __________, and di rectly participate

in all-European ____________ and Euro pean structures.7. The Act of

____________ of Ukraine was adopted in 1991. 8. The Ministry of ___

__________ Affairs’ tasks included the ______________ of Ukraine by

the world _____________, establishment of diplomatic _____________,

creation of a __________ of diplomatic and consu lar ______________,

establishment of full bilateral ___________ with foreign states, acquiring

membership and be coming a _________ member of leading _________

____ organizations. 9. The Ukrainian diplomacy has had a lot of _____

_______ since the declaration of independence. 10. Ukraine was ______

______ by more than 170 foreign states. 11. Ukraine has ____________

diplomatic relations with most of them. 12. Ukraine continues to develop

____________ cooperation. 13. Ukraine has ____________ of 134 foreign

states and international _______________ working in the country. 13. The

Foreign ________ system has the staff of over 1,800, which is 18 times

more than in 1990. 14. The MFA has organised _________ of Ukrainian

diplomats. 15. The main educational ______________ of diplomatic

service include the leading National universities of Kyiv, Kharkiv and

Lviv. 16. Ukraine has a ____________ in more than 90 interna tional organizations

and has concluded more than 2,000 international ____________

documents. 17. The “Basic __________ of Ukraine’s Foreign Policy”, approved

by the ___________ Rada of Ukraine, provides recommendations

and _______ for the government and _________ bodies, dip lomatic and

consular ___________ of Ukraine, as well as for other state ____________

taking part in the Ukrainian foreign policy.

7. Render the following proper names into English.

Верховна Рада України; Дипломатична Академія при МЗС України, Ін-

ститут міжнародних відносин Київського Національного університету

імені Тараса Шевченка, Львівський Національний університет імені

Івана Франка, Національна юридична академія імені Ярослава Мудро-

го у Харкові, Інститут сходознавства і міжнародних відносин “Харків-

ський колегіум”.

8. Work in pairs. Reproduce the text on the modern stage in the history

of Ukrainian diplomacy to your partner. Use the headlines below as the

backbone for your story.

0. Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine.

1. Ukraine as a subject of international law

2. The new tasks of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

3. The main achievement of Ukrainian diplomacy

4. Training of new generations of Ukrainian diplomats.

5. The “Basic Directions of Ukraine’s Foreign Policy”

9. Read the text (adapted from the articles by Serhiy SOLODKY and

Viktor ZAMYATIN in The Day of April 20, 2004) and answer the following

questions: What are the main directions of Ukraine-NATO cooperation?

What are the main problems in this field? What measures are being

taken at the moment? What are the prospects of this cooperation?

Confirming the Course

On April 14 a joint session of the NATO Political and Military-Political

Steering Committees with Ukraine-NATO Military Reform Working Group

took place at NATO Headquarters. The Ukrainian delegation was headed

by Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk. The head of the Defense Ministry

presented the participants a draft Strategic Defense Bulletin for the period to

2015. This document presents a so-called white book evaluating the condition

of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and determines the directions for reforming

them in the period to 2015. The Defense Ministry states, “The Strategic Defense

Bulletin is a step toward implementation of the intentions for European

and Euro-Atlantic integration declared by Ukraine.” An important element

of this document is detailed forecasts on defense expenses. In part, in 2015

defense expenditures are to be UAH 17.186 billion compared to this year’s

UAH 5.658 billion. In addition, the document anticipates reducing Ukraine’s

Armed Forces from 355,000 to 200,000 by 2006 with further reductions by

2015. Deputy Head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine General Headquarters

Leonid HOLOPATIUK told about the results of the document’s presentation

by phone from Brussels:

“The participants in the meeting took special note of the fact that they received

open and transparent materials. NATO representatives confirmed that the very format of this meeting was unprecedented: for the first time

in the alliance’s history the meeting was held by the NATO Political and

Military-Political Steering Committees and the Ukraine-NATO Military Reform

Working Group on such a high level. Our delegation enjoyed absolute

support, getting very positive feedback. Simultaneously, professional issues

were touched upon, dealing with the implementation of our plans for the

military reform, namely, its financial and resource provisions. Our work was

highly evaluated by representatives of the United States, Poland, Great Britain,

the Netherlands, Germany, and Turkey. Everyone was impressed with

the Ukrainian experts’ analysis. The alliance countries’ representatives said

that with this step Ukraine has confirmed its commitment to its Euro-Atlantic

course. They also received positively the fact that we have calculated in

detail the consequences of the military reform. Our delegation was able to

give clear explanations with examples regarding social guarantees and also

Ukraine’s plans for liquidating military equipment and ammunition. There

were also questions about democratic control. The meeting participants

viewed positively not only our thoroughly elaborated document but also our

reasoned and convincing explanations. They stressed that it was the first time

that Ukraine has sent such a strong team to the NATO Headquarters: representatives

of the Ministry of Defense, General Headquarters, National Security

and Defense Council, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and National Center

for Euro-Atlantic Integration. Such a respectable and well— informed delegation

is in itself evidence of Ukraine’s dedication to its Euro— Atlantic

course. It is important that, rather than criticism, we heard friendly advice

demonstrating our common concern about implementing the plans set.”

Istanbul View

Yesterday new NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former

foreign minister of the Netherlands, visited Kyiv. The visit was primarily

of a get-acquainted character, although Secretary Scheffer has already met

Ukraine’s ministers of foreign affairs and defense. This time he came to familiarize

himself with Ukraine as “NATO’s special partner,” its ambitions,

potential, correlation between its declared goals and reality, and especially

with the country’s domestic situation on the elections eve. The special feature

of the new Secretary General’s visit is that it took place immediately

after seven countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria,

and Romania) had joined the alliance. Visits of the alliance’s high

representatives to Ukraine, which in the last decade have became common,

never ceasing even during Ukraine’s diplomatic isolation, have a simple explanation: Ukraine is NATO’s special partner, and the latter gives considerable

attention to this relationship.

In his address after the meeting at Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs the

secretary-general stressed that the alliance attaches great importance to the

strategic partnership between NATO and Ukraine. In his words, the sides

have good relationship but it can become even better. He said that yesterday

they discussed [at the Foreign Ministry] precisely the measures able to improve

interaction between Kyiv and Brussels. Scheffer stressed Ukraine’s

practical contribution to global security, in part, our peacekeepers’ missions

in Iraq and Kosovo. Foreign Minister Hryshchenko, in his turn, informed the

high guest on considering the documents important for securing effective interaction

between Kyiv and Brussels. He mentioned that the memorandum

On Using Ukraine’s Military Transport Aircraft is to be ratified soon.

One of Scheffer’s major messages was that Ukraine should give attention

to such values as democracy, the rule of the law, and the freedom of the

press. Obviously, both the probability of a Ukraine-NATO Commission

meeting during the June 28–29 Istanbul Summit and the level of Ukraine’s

representation at this summit will depend on how well these instructions

are implemented. Diplomats from individual NATO countries hinted that

the meeting could fail to take place for various reasons. Some connect such

a course of events with Ukraine’s pre-election situation, others, with the

still undefined agenda of the summit. It is not ruled out that it will be completely

devoted to Iraq. Therefore, the meeting’s participants might simply

reject negotiations in a special format (as is the case with Ukraine and

Russia). Scheffer stated that during the Kyiv negotiations the parties have

briefly touched upon the Istanbul Summit. Pointing out that NATO is an

organization working on the consensus basis, meaning that the decision will

be made by all its members, the secretary-general said that so far no decision

has been made as to the level of Ukraine’s representation at the Ukraine-

NATO commission meeting. However, he stressed that a meeting on a high

level is not impossible, adding that a positive decision on this subject will

depend not only on NATO but also on Ukraine.

Today Ukraine can demonstrate to NATO certain achievements. In part, Defense

Minister Yevhen Marchuk has presented the draft Defense Bulletin in

Brussels, the work on which began as early as two years ago with a support

from the NATO Headquarters representatives along with separate alliance

member states. NATO’s Political and Military and Political Committees, it is reported, highly praised the document. The bulletin contains, in part, data

on the Armed Forces and ideas concerning the state’s further need in the

Armed Forces in terms of their functions. After revision, the document will

be presented to the National Defense and Security Council of Ukraine. It is

to be approved by the president of Ukraine.

Speaking about NATO’s evaluation of Ukraine’s performance regarding the

Action Plan and Target Plan 2004, ratified in Prague, while, on the one hand,

in the words of Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Oleh Shamshur, “NATO

partners’ evaluation is highly harsh and critical,” on the other, the alliance

recognizes that Ukraine has made considerable effort and “achieved fundamental

progress”.

Perhaps in international diplomatic language this means simply, “it didn’t

fail... but we cannot be completely satisfied,” the diplomat says. Not all the

laws required by the Target Plan 2003 were adopted; there also remain problems

connected with the course of the election campaign (democratization

and securing free elections are among Ukraine’s priority tasks according

to the documents signed with NATO) and the freedom of speech (the same

refers to it). Some of the clauses not implemented were, in Mr. Shamshur’s

words, “incorporated” into the Target Plan 2004, which had recently been

made public. By this document Ukraine is to, in part, approve 37 new laws.

The defense reform in Ukraine traditionally receives positive feedback in the

West. However, much remains to be done in terms of implementing civilian

command over the Armed Forces and reforming law enforcement bodies

and special services, which at present are almost totally closed.

Chairman of the ad hoc parliamentary Committee on Cooperation with

NATO and First Deputy Chairman of the Committee on European Integration

Oleh Zarubinsky states that “a tendency has been formed in Ukraine

for slowing down the rate of movement toward NATO.” In his words, the

deputies have not seen yet the complete text of the Strategy of Ukraine’s

Relations with NATO; moreover, “It is still unclear whether this text exists

at all.” The deputy also spoke about the virtually nonexistent information

policy regarding the Ukraine-NATO relations along with the fact that leading

television channels present information on NATO in either neutral or

critical form, which, in his view, is absolutely unacceptable, unless the state

policy aimed at Ukraine joining the alliance has changed.

Representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain, and Poland

continue to make statements on their countries’ support for Ukraine’s intentions

to join the North Atlantic alliance. Similar statements can be heard

from representatives of the leadership of Turkey, the Baltic States, and

Bulgaria. Ukraine-NATO relations were among key topics of the recent Kyiv

negotiations with US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Simultaneously,

there is no clear idea of how these relations are to further develop or

whether the 1997 Charter on Special Partnership is sufficient for their legal

securing. There is no clear answer to the question, how Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic

prospects can be affected with its not always understandable steps in

its relations with Russia, which, demanding a truly special status in its relations

with NATO, in fact denies such a right to anyone else. However, yesterday

the secretary- general stressed that other countries have every right to

take even decisions to which the Kremlin might develop a political allergy,

expressing his confidence that Russia will treat this with understanding.

10. Write a 300-word essay on the present relations of Ukraine and

NATO and the prospects of their development.