BRUSSELS – The European Parliament is likely to approve the new 1-billion euro program of macro-financial assistance proposed for Ukraine – but not without a few strings attached.
In line with the protocol of the European Union, the European Commission’s proposal to grant Ukraine 1 billion euros in loans was already supported by the two relevant committees in the European Parliament and the EU Council by ambassadors of all 28 member countries on May 29.
Now it’s up to the European Parliament to give final approval to the loan during a vote on June 12 in Strasbourg.
But things may not go entirely smoothly for Ukraine: some members of the European Parliament are pushing for a few conditions to be attached to the deal prior to the vote.
These conditions are the establishment of an independent anti-corruption court, exemption of civil society activists from public declarations of their assets, and a fairer composition of the disgraced Central Election Commission, according to Michael Gahler, a member of the European Parliament from Germany and the co-rapporteur for the Committee for Foreign Affairs.
Ukraine desperately needs the money, especially as its loan program from the International Monetary Fund has long been on hold. If the IMF terminates its $17.5 billion program to Ukraine, the government will need to fill a $4 billion hole in its 2018 budget, Finance Minister Oleksandr Danylyuk said on June 6. Total revenues of the budget had been predicted at about $35 billion.
“Everybody agrees that reform in the field of anti-corruption is insufficient,” Gahler told the Kyiv Post. “Where there are oligarch interests, the reforms are not moving forward. Everyone has a critical opinion on that.”
In fact, the establishment of the anti-corruption court has been one of the main demands of Ukraine’s Western partners and civil society for the past two years. The court is necessary to complete the chain of agencies investigating and prosecuting high-level graft, which is currently made up of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (which investigates corruption) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutors Office (which prosecutes corruption cases in court).
After many months of resistance and back-and-forth, the Ukrainian parliament is finally considering a bill on the anti-corruption court to try high-level corruption cases, and it is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the session week on June 8.
“Everybody is talking to everybody (in the European Parliament), asking ‘what do you think is going on in Ukraine’ especially in the Rada, on the issue of the anti-corruption court? Everyone is surprised that it’s still delayed,” Gahler told the Kyiv Post.
According to him, people in the EU institutions assume that the setting up of the anti-corruption court in Ukraine is being delayed on purpose.
“Apparently, there are several people in Ukraine who have an interest in keeping this process ongoing as long as possible,” Gahler said. “Many people in the European Parliament and in other European institutions think that when oligarchs’ interests are involved, reforms do not move. They believe that the intent is not to allow the anti-corruption court to start to work before the Ukrainian (presidential) elections (in March 2019).”
That said, the granting of the macro-financial assistance isn’t threatened: Gahler is sure that the European Parliament will support the proposal. But he insists on including pre-conditions.
“We will have in one article an amendment to the text of the European Commission, which will say that among other things, these three elements must be part of the Memorandum of Understanding – anti-corruption, e-declarations and a balanced Central Election Commission,” Gahler said. “We think that one billion euros should go along with improvements in the reform process in Ukraine. This is a political demand, and it does not contradict the macro-financial assistance (program).”
He added that his committee wanted the European Commission, responsible for the Memorandum of Understanding, to “take this conditionality on board, but without delay.”
But not everyone in the European Parliament wants conditions attached to the loan, arguing that it will slow down the allocation of the money.
One of them is a member of the European Parliament, Jaroslaw Walesa of Poland, who is the rapporteur with the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament which, like Gahler’s foreign affairs committee, approved the assistance program. The difference between these two decisions is that Trade Committee prepares the draft resolution, which goes for a vote, while the decision of Foreign Affairs Committee is only an opinion and will not be voted on. Walesa told journalists he wanted to avoid making any amendments to the document, as this would slow down its approval.
“This money is badly needed in Ukraine,” he said. “I asked members to withdraw their amendments because amendments will mean trialogue with the Commission and the Council. It will postpone the whole process and we will end up with an agreement within six months or so. That is too long.”
Instead, he wants to put concerns into a joint statement prepared by the European Parliament, Commission and the Council, which will be voted for as an annex to the relevant resolution.
“In the statement, we include our concerns about the reforms (in Ukraine). This is our way to say to our friends in Ukraine that they need to speed up the process of reforms,” added Walesa.
