The period since the independence of the Ukraine, 1991, has long been characterized as a time of maneuvering between East and West. Under President Leonid Kutschma, but also after the „Orange Revolution“ in the late Autumn of 2004, the future development of the Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy seemed unclear. However since the demise of the Soviet Union the country, with its population of 46 million, has moved ahead with the process of democratization and openness. The threat that the country would split apart has been avoided and a unified state has been established. Good links to NATO and the EU have been developed. And despite much debate, the future orientation is towards NATO membership. The Ukraine has remained calm since the end of the Soviet Union. There has been neither ethnic tension nor civil-war in contrast to Russia or other successor states to the Soviet Union.

Domestic and foreign policy issues continue to be debated. The extension of the EU, partnership with the East, membership of NATO and energy policy are important issues. Also the Ukraine, a country on the eastern border of the EU, has a strategic significance. Geopolitical and above all also economic factors play an important role. Until the economic crisis of 2008, the stabilization of the currency (Hryvnja), the containment of inflation and the opening of markets resulted in positive developments. That the Ukraine has become more attractive to business can be seen in the numerous German/Ukrainian co-operation agreements and the constantly increasing amount of internal investment. Also, the mobility of the Ukrainian people now means that many are working in EU countries particularly in the service sector. The remittances from this mobile population are a significant addition to the domestic economy – especially in this time of economic crisis.

At the same time, reforms to the legal and political system are still necessary to achieve the goals of “transparency and stability”. This is still the case after the “Orange Revolution”. President Leonid Kutschma’s second term (1999-2004) was characterized by increasing authoritarianism and the rise of clan and oligarchic nepotism. The “Orange Revolution” has resulted in contributions to the democratization and stabilization of society but the development of a market economy, the fight against corruption, the establishment of defined structures in the political and economic decision-making processes, and a clear separation of powers, remain on the “wish list” or at least require significant improvement.

With this background, civil society and NGOs have a decisive role to play in the Ukraine. Despite the political failings and imponderables, civil society has proved itself in the last ten years. Given the lack of political continuity, dialogue with members of civil society is of no less significance than dialogue with political actors. Whether the increasing support for the development of civil society in the Ukraine will lead to the desired success is an issue which deserves special attention. This is an issue not only for those active in NGOs but also for society as a whole.

Peter Hilkes, forumNET.Ukraine