Interview of Mr Voleš with a Ukrainian Journalist

Permanent link: http://www.eurointegration.com.ua/rus/interview/2014/12/22/7029011/ 1. Ivan Voleš: "We are not insisting on Firtash's participation in the EU association platform"

Sergey Sidorenko, Европейская правда (European Truth), Monday, 22 December 2014, 08:39

The Ukraine-EU Civil Society Platform (CSP) is one of five bilateral bodies, the establishment of which is provided for under the Association Agreement (AA). Its task is to create a mechanism for consultation between the state and social organisations. In early November, when the AA began to be applied provisionally, the Ukrainian side of the CSP became the first body to be set up within the framework of the association.

However, problems have since emerged. The party to the CSP on the EU side, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), announced that it did not recognise the results of the elections held by the Ukrainian side.

The situation is complicated by the fact that letters sent to Kiev by European colleagues require the CSP to incorporate organisations with the status of "social partner" – the Federation of

EESC-2015-00182-00-00-TCD-TRA (RU) 1/5 EN Ukrainian Employers (FRU, led by Dimitry Firtash) and the Federation of Ukrainian Trade Unions (FPU).

European Truth has already published an opinion by Ukrainian experts on the emerging conflict.

Now we give the floor to the European side, Ivan Voleš – EESC member responsible for strategy vis à vis Ukraine.

In an interview with European Truth, he recognised the problem and did not rule out that the work of the association body might be blocked if the Ukrainian side did not make concessions.

At the same time, Voleš announced that his committee was not insisting on the participation of Firtash and his associates in the CSP and was prepared to accept a scenario whereby the employers' quota in the platform would be filled by other business associations, for example, the European Business Association (EBA). * * * * * – When do you think the EU-Ukraine Civil Society Platform will be set up? – I am sure it will happen in the first half of 2015. What is happening now is a misunderstanding on the part of our Ukrainian colleagues of what the European variant of civil society is. This problem has occurred by the way not only with Ukrainian colleagues but with other countries too. The European approach to civil society is much broader than what is accepted beyond the EU's borders. The European Union believes that civil society consists of associations of employers and trade unions as well as the "third sector", comprising not only NGOs, but also many other organisations, such as associations of farmers, women's associations, youth organisations, etc. – Nevertheless, the Association Agreement gives the Ukrainian side the right to independently set up its side of the CSP. It has been established, open elections have taken place, but now the EESC does not recognise the results. – The point is that you have not quite understood the Association Agreement. Those who drew up the agreement assumed that the Ukrainian side of the platform would be a mirror image of the European side, yet your part of the platform is on the whole made up of NGO representatives. It would be quite strange if the Ukrainian and European sides of the platform were to be so different. – I have talked to the Ukrainian negotiators about the text of the AA. They say that they did not intend for there to be an obligation to create something analogous to the EESC in

EESC-2015-00182-00-00-TCD-TRA (RU) 2/5 Ukraine. What is more, there are already employers and trade unions present in the Ukrainian side of the platform. – They are not sufficiently represented and Ukrainian trade unions are complaining about this. I have discussed these contradictions many times with Ukrainian colleagues. They stress that they simply do not have confidence in Ukrainian employers' organisations and trade unions because the latter have links with the government while the former include disreputable oligarchs. Ukrainian NGOs have a very sceptical view of these groups. This is why they are against proportional representation. – Incidentally, in the text of the Association Agreement there is no mention of the proportional principle you are insisting on. – There are no clear-cut rules. This is why we say that we are prepared to be flexible and are not insisting that employers and trade unions should be represented in a rigidly defined way. But they should be adequately represented so that the Ukrainian side of the CSP represents civil society as a whole, and not just think tanks. – Which "social partners" would you like to see in the first group? – The Ukrainian employers' federation. Its representatives recently visited us and spoke about their willingness to play a more active role in the work of the CSP. – But you are surely aware of what people in Ukraine think about the head of the FRU Dmitry Firtash. Many people therefore perceive the EESC's policy as an attempt to bring Firtash's people into one of the association's bodies. Do you not find this embarrassing? – We are not forcing you to include Firtash or people who are unacceptable politically. There is no need to fixate on one person. You need to select names which are acceptable to all. We understand that this is a difficult process, but the argument that certain people were involved in illegal activities cannot be used to justify prohibiting or limiting the representation of the entire organisation (FRU). In my country, the Czech Republic, there were also cases where people who had been in charge of such organisations ended up in the dock. So what? In that case the organisation chose a new head. – But the issue here is not one person but the organisation which he created and whose governing body is made up exclusively of his people. And since, in its dialogue with Ukraine, the EESC is insisting on including only "social partners" in the CSP, there is no other choice – the FRU is the only organisation with such a status in Ukraine. Even associations such as the EBA and the American Chamber of Commerce do not meet these criteria.

EESC-2015-00182-00-00-TCD-TRA (RU) 3/5 – We will not tell Ukraine who to appoint to the CSP as employers' representatives. That decision rests with you. We are not insisting that Firtash participate in the work of the platform. The concept of "social partnership" is a separate matter, distinct from the establishment of the platform. It is true that the social partners have a special status in EU agreements, but the EESC does not limit itself to working only with such organisations. For example, I represent the Czech chamber of trade and industry which is not a "social partner". Nevertheless it is considered to be an employers' organisation in the framework of the EESC. As far as I know, Ukraine has 12 different employers' organisations. We cooperate, inter alia, with the EBA and AmCham. It is up to you to decide which of them is more pro-European, more committed to Ukraine's transformation into a European democratic state. We even accept that, as it begins its work, the CSP may not have to achieve a clear balance between civil society groups. But the current situation, whereby the platform includes only one employers' representative and one from the trade unions (out of 15 CSP members) – this is not suitable. – You mentioned that you are prepared to accept a transitional period. How might that work? – We are awaiting proposals from Ukraine on how it intends to achieve this balanced representation (of employers and trade unions in the CSP). But I would point out the following – suggestions that this balance will be achieved only after a few years – this is not a constructive approach. Progress needs to be much quicker. Five years ago, I told a colleague from the Ukrainian NGOs: there will come a time when you will have to set up a platform with the participation of two other groups. But the Ukrainian partners did not take this seriously and said that such associations with business and trade unions were unacceptable to them. They told us that business was dirty and corrupt and that trade unions had links with the government. Meanwhile time has passed. In my view, it is not possible to wait several more years. – From what you have said, there is a sense that the parties are deadlocked. You are calling for proportional representation, insisting on the European model. Members of the newly created Ukrainian side of the CSP reasonably object that the AA does not provide for any such rules. What is the basis for your optimism that the platform will start its work in the coming months? – In Ukraine you say that you have chosen Europe. But this means that you should accept our principles and approaches. This is not the case if you accept only the parts you like.

EESC-2015-00182-00-00-TCD-TRA (RU) 4/5 The preamble to the Association Agreement states that you accept European values, in other words you have accepted this obligation. That is why we expect the Ukrainian side of the platform to adhere to these principles. – That is pure manipulation! Proportional representation of employers and trade unions is not a European value! What you are referring to is not values but internal EU legislation, with which EU members have to comply. But Ukraine does not even have a formal prospect of membership. – But if you want to be a democratic country, you need to take account of the views of trade unions and employers' associations. – I come back to the question I asked earlier – why are you so optimistic that the platform will be set up soon? For the time being, the situation appears to be at a dead-end. You are making demands of the Ukrainian side of the CSP which your Ukrainian colleagues appear not to agree with. And you are not prepared to allow even a few years for the transformation of Ukrainian civil society. – Yes, if the Ukrainian partners are not willing to adopt a more realistic and flexible approach, then the Civil Society Platform will not be set up. We are willing to wait however long it takes until the required conditions are in place. – Would you be willing to be flexible on your side? – We are being flexible in the sense that we are not insisting on strict quotas for employers and trade unions. You have 15 members of the CSP; the ratio does not have to be exactly 5:5:5. We are willing to accept that, initially, the ratio could be a little different. But even in this case, the third group – Ukrainian NGOs – should not have more than half the votes in the platform. © 2014, Европейская правда, eurointegration.com.ua Use or reprinting of material is possible only by making reference (for internet publications – by means of a hyperlink) to Европейскa правдa.

EESC-2015-00182-00-00-TCD-TRA (RU) 5/5