The ultimate goal of diplomacy

Very few Ukrainian diplomats have as much experience of work in the foreign-policy sector as Kostiantyn Hryshchenko has. He held the office of vice premier, served two terms as minister of foreign affairs, was Ukraine’s ambassador to the US, Russia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, as well as the head of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO. The Day requested Mr. Hryshchenko to assess the effectiveness of Ukraine’s foreign policy now that this country is facing unprecedented challenges and a threat to the very existence of our state.

“THE FUTURE OF UKRAINE DEPENDS ON A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF THE CONFLICT”

“The situation in this sphere is unique. On the one hand, Ukraine cannot choose a military way of restoring its territorial integrity and establishing peace in the east. On the other, the future of Ukraine as a modern European state depends precisely on a peaceful settlement of the conflict and the creation of prerequisites for a sustained and secure development in the future. This is the priority on which all the political forces in the country and the foreign ministry should focus their efforts.”

Do you think we have achieved serious progress in this matter?

“The progress is small, if any at all. Even of what was quite achievable, we have realized not more than 20 percent. This is the result of irresoluteness, hesitations, and disorientation of the post-Maidan leadership at the initial stage of the conflict and the excessively obedient fulfillment of the ‘recommendations’ of our partners who only cared about their current interests. This was also caused by inability to use as much as possible the potential influence of our Western partners on the developments. The same applies to communication with Moscow: the never-ending telephone conversations between the heads of the two states only helped to ease tension on the line of contact but did not pave the way for a political settlement of the situation as a whole. The deadlock the Minsk negotiations reached is a brilliant illustration of this.”

“THE CURRENT AMBASSADORS STILL REMAIN WITHOUT CLEAR DIRECTIVES OR A PUBLICLY-UNDERSTANDABLE STRATEGY”

I’ve heard many ex-ambassadors complain that the leadership does not use their experience. It is particularly strange that this occurs at the time when our country, which is waging a war with Russia, including on the diplomatic front, is facing so formidable challenges. What do you think of this?

“If only it were about former ambassadors… The trouble is that the current ambassadors, too, who can and want to help resolve the problems of importance to our country, in fact remain to their own devices – without such things as clear directives, a publicly-understandable strategy, the required staff, feedback on their demands, real motivation, and knowledge of further prospects after the expiry of their term.

“It is a Herculean task to train an ambassador who could efficiently represent our state in any capital, speak to his counterparts on a par, feel what is possible in a concrete situation, and find the means to achieve this goal. There should be no superficial approach to this, such as ‘youth will cope with all this’ – this would amount to systemic irresponsibility.”

“A DIPLOMAT IS SUPPOSED TO ACHIEVE CONCRETE RESULTS, NOT TO HYPE HIMSELF UP”

But we have very many young active ambassadors and lower-level diplomats. We know them by their public stand and their posts in social media, where they are vigorously taking a clear patriotic attitude.

“I am convinced that a diplomat is supposed not to hype himself up inside the country but to achieve concrete results in his area of responsibility – be it the capitals of major European states, the emerging markets of Asia, the Middle East or Latin America, or, say, at the Minsk negotiations. If you read their posts in social media, the impression is that we always win. But the results prove the opposite. We lose in the Council of Europe, have problems in Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic, and not only there. A true diplomat achieves the result by working in silence, when he or she can show the ability to offer the best proposals to the top leadership and receive permission to implement them, and the ability to persuade partners.”

Then what do you think of President Poroshenko’s statement that, thanks to the efforts of diplomats, we have managed to reach solidarity in the EU, the US, Canada, and Japan about sanctions against Russia?

“Of course, our diplomats have made serious efforts to achieve this. But let us be frank: the sanctions were imposed first of all because there is a broad consensus in Washington and Europe that it is unacceptable to undermine the foundations of international law, as it happened in the case of Crimea’s annexation. We exerted only a superficial – I would even say extremely small – influence on determining the scope of the sanctions agreed upon by the US and the EU. We ourselves imposed sanctions much later than our partners did. Diplomacy must work more actively to achieve the goal of imposing sanctions – restoration of the state’s full sovereignty over the uncontrolled territories and, later, of its complete territorial integrity.”

Are the sanctions likely to be preserved? For in Germany the Free Democratic Party, one of the future partners in the ruling coalition, favors lifting sanctions against Russia. And Croatia’s President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic also said during a meeting with the Russian leader in Moscow that the sanctions should be lifted.

“In Europe, every country is trying to find its interest and benefit, which often runs counter to the general principles of solidarity in defending common values.”

“IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY WHY TRUMP RESPECTS PUTIN SO MUCH”

The United States is our strategic ally, but senators McCain and Durbin claimed recently that President Trump had failed to fulfill at least a single item of the law on anti-Russian sanctions passed a few months ago. Would you comment on this?

“The point is that the policy towards Ukraine and Russia in fact rests today on the unanimous decision of Congress. As for Trump, it is difficult to say why he respects Putin personally and, hence, Russia so much. Trump can influence the pursuit of this policy, but it is basically set out in a law the US Congress passed.”

And to what extent is the Ukrainian diaspora influential in this case?

“The Ukrainian diaspora in the US is still wielding certain influence, but it should not be exaggerated. In the postwar period until Ukraine regained independence, the Ukrainian diaspora used to organize thousands-strong marches to have an impact on Washington. This particularly caused the Bush Sr. administration to change its attitude to the recognition of independent Ukraine. But the bulk of the Ukrainian diaspora in America believe that they have thus accomplished their historical mission. Now everything depends on us. They are ready to help but will no longer stake on any political force in Kyiv.”

“THE SANCTIONS ARE WORKING, AND THEIR IMPACT WILL BE FELT SOME TIME LATER”

As is known, imposing sanctions against Russia, the Obama administration intended to force Putin to revise his actions in respect of Ukraine and step back. Now, three years on, we can see that this has not happened. What do you think the West should and can do to force Russia to abide by the norms of international law?

“The sanctions are working, and their impact will be felt some time later. They will have a cumulative effect owing to the oil and gas price fall. The main thing in the sanctions is their financial component. At the same time, as long as the Kremlin is able to convince Russian society that it is Russia’s grandeur, I think it will tolerate this, but things can change in the course of time. The Soviet Union also managed to withstand the imposed restrictions for a long time, but still it lost in the long run.”

The new US Special Representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, said in an interview: “[Russia’s] costs are increasing. Even the financial costs of just maintaining the Donbas, and they’re not getting anything out of it. So, that at least opens the door to thinking maybe Russia would like to try something else.” Do you share the opinion that Moscow may change its behavior and Russia will eventually withdraw from the Donbas and then from Crimea?

“Of course, Volker’s mediatory mission works within the limits of a certain corridor. His mission is based, above all, on the fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements. It will be difficult to flout these agreements, for the president of Ukraine signed them. He keeps on saying that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements. They have assumed the status of an official UN Security Council document. It is impossible to ignore them.

“In the immediate future, our American partners will be negotiating with Russia on the acceptable, in Washington’s opinion, conditions for riding out the crisis. After being coordinated with the Europeans, this joint position will be finally presented to Kyiv. I don’t think it will just pressure on us. In all probability, we will be offered a series of motivations and incentives, such as a program of the Donbas’ economic revival, financial and technical assistance in forming a new political and legal pattern of interaction between the uncontrolled part of the Donbas and ‘mainland Ukraine,’ as well as other, less important, things.

“But everything depends on the extent to which the Americans and Europeans will be able to rely on the current leadership as partner in the implementation of difficult compromises, without which peace in eastern Ukraine is impossible in the near future. Today, neither the former nor the latter are sure of this.”

“PEACEKEEPERS SHOULD BE PART OF THE OVERALL PATTERN OF ACHIEVING THE FINAL RESULT”

Are there any prospects for deploying a peacekeeping force in the Donbas, or is it just a form of freezing this conflict for a long time?

“Peacekeepers are only an instrument to resolve a more complicated problem. It is obvious. The point is not in peacekeepers as such. They should be part of the overall pattern of achieving the final result.”

But this depends on Russia which has the power of veto in the UN SC, doesn’t it?

“Of course. And no breakthrough is likely before the presidential elections in Russia.”

Incidentally, the law on integration of the Donbas was recently passed in the first reading. Will this document help achieve the goal?

“I think it will cause serious problems. A law is needed, but I don’t think this one serves this goal.”

“WE ARE NOT USING EVEN THE OBVIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THE BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM AFFORDS”

Do you think it is worthwhile to debate on the Budapest Memorandum which Russia has violated?

“I said the other day that we should make use of the Budapest Memorandum’s mechanisms. This document says that the state that has renounced nuclear arms can demand urgent consultations if its territorial integrity was violated or if it came under economic pressure. I’ve only heard some ‘sobbing’ rather than a clear-cut and firm demand to convene this kind of consultations. Yes, our minister began to say that Russia did not agree, but it is not necessary that all take part in the consultations. We should hold consultations with those who did not go back on their commitments under the Budapest Memorandum and continue to guarantee them. Of course, we would perhaps have derived no material benefits from this in practice, but we would have a platform now to pressure at least the US and the UK. But we did not use and are still not using even these obvious opportunities. Likewise, if we don’t like a certain part of the Minsk Agreements, we should not have supported them as a UN Security Council document. In other words, our foreign policy lacks ‘brains’ and a well-thought-out strategy of what we are striving for and in what way we want to achieve our aim.”

What do you think of the supply of US lethal weapons to Ukraine – a controversial issue in the US itself?

“Ukraine is free to ask for any weapons. This country is under no sanctions and really needs arms to defend its interests on its own territory. It is not using or going to use these weapons against other states. But our partners do not trust in the ability of the current leadership to properly use the weapons and prevent them from getting into the hands of those who may copy them. This mistrust keeps the US from deciding to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.”

Recently, we’ve been watching a scandal between this country and the neighboring Hungary and Rumania over the education law which provides for a gradual introduction of the Ukrainian language as medium of instruction in ethnic minority schools. On the one hand, Ukraine must really protect its interests and care about a wider use of the Ukrainian language, but, on the other, we can in fact see an ultimatum from Hungary and Romania. What do you think about this?

“One must always think of the ultimate result. Undoubtedly, we should expand the use of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of life and create preconditions for this. It is counterproductive to do so by force. If the Ukrainian side is sure that it is right, it should prove this both inside and outside the country. But nothing of the sort is being done. It is the fault of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government as a whole. They should have pursued a preemptive tactic. This raises the question of whether an analysis was made into the necessity of giving the Hungarians and Romanians a pretext to block a much more important and pressing thing for us – next steps in European integration.”

“FOR MANY IN RUSSIA, UKRAINE STILL REMAINS A ‘FRATERNAL’ COUNTRY IN AN UNACCEPTABLE FOR US MEANING OF THE WORD”

You worked in Russia as ambassador, and I think you know very well that any government of Ukraine strove to have equal and mutually advantageous relations with that country. But how could it happen that the Russians first illegally annexed Crimea and then occupied under the guise of the so-called separatists a part of the Donbas?

“I can remember summit-level discussions, where I was present, which were held in the spirit of a meeting between two sovereign independent states that showed mutual interest in maintaining and developing economic relations and avoiding tensions caused by language- or culture-related policies. Thanks to this, we managed to sign basic comprehensive treaties that guaranteed territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, and many other important things that comply with the generally accepted principles of international law.

“But for many in Russia, Ukraine still remains a ‘fraternal’ country in a very specific, unacceptable for us, meaning of the word. Yet I am convinced that we should be friendly neighboring states – ideally, like Canada and the US. This used to be really possible. But now it will take the all-out efforts of perhaps more than one generation to overcome the consequences of what has occurred in the past few years and to reach reconciliation.”

Incidentally, I was at the French IFRI center in 2008, and one of its executives said that Ukraine should be a fox in its relationship with Russia, that you can’t achieve a certain goal by slogans alone…

“Yes. Politicians very often behave irresponsibly. A diplomat must think not of how he looks in the process but of how he can help achieve the most adequate result for his country.”

And what do you think of Ksenia Sobchak entering the presidential campaign in Russia? Is it a game or something else?

“Of course, it is a game of sorts. She is playing. Putin has known her since she was a child. But it doesn’t matter who will be Putin’s rival, for it is clear who will be the winner.”

Everybody is saying that Ukraine should have good relations with Russia and be a major trade partner, as before. Can you imagine when this will occur?

“As the economy is, in this case, a secondary factor that influences the relations, I don’t think this will occur soon, even though both countries have a long-term interest in restoring more or less normal relations. There are, of course, a lot of reasons for this, but there will be surely no changes until a new leadership comes.”

“WE ARE BREAKING AWAY FROM RUSSIA, BUT IT IS STILL A LONG STORY”

Do you think our country has really broken away from Russia, as Poroshenko said, now that the EU has waived visas for Ukraine, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement or, in other words, the Association Agreement has come into force, and we have achieved, to some extent, energy independence from Russia?

“We are breaking away from Russia, but it is still a long story. We are living in different worlds. The Russians are concerned about a certain Poklonskaya, a certain Matilda – I even don’t know what it is all about. And they don’t know what is going on here – they think one can be thrown behind bars in Ukraine for speaking Russian. In general, there are a lot of things that break the ties of both states and nations. In reality, it will not be easy to bring back more normal relations. I think we will all be living in a more or less friendly world at a certain stage. But no one knows how long this will take, and, meanwhile, we are distancing ourselves from each other.”

You took a critical approach to reforming the Diplomatic Academy, which you told The Day frankly. What do you think about the first results of the reformed academy’s performance? Was it right to reform it?

“The Diplomatic Academy has been lost as a prestigious educational institution that used to provide comprehensive specialized training not only to professional diplomats, but also to executive branch officials.

“It is now an extension course, not a diplomatic academy in the traditional sense of the word. It may be very useful and important from the angle of the further training of specialists. At the same time, this reformed Diplomatic Academy is rather limited, which affects the prestige of the ministry itself.”

 “I HOPE THAT THE AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPERIENCE WILL BE USED MORE EXTENSIVELY TO PROMOTE STATE INTERESTS”

What do you think of establishing in Ukraine think tanks, like the Washington-based American Foreign Policy Council which I visited or any other, that would provide foreign policy recommendations for the leadership?

“There are dozens of such think tanks in the US. But we have no preconditions for this. In the US, two and a half thousand federal offices are held by political appointees. There is no such thing as competitions, and there’s only one filter. The administration decides whom it wants to appoint, and if it is a high-level office, the Senate gives its consent. Of course, there is a serious FBI vetting and a financial checkup, but there are no competitions. The president who came to power is fully responsible for his appointments, but, at the same time, he has ample instruments to pursue his policies. As the Democrats and the Republicans replace each other in power, this changes the entire upper stratum. A considerable number of those who lost their political offices are invited to political science centers. They form a reserve for the future change of power.

“We have nothing close to this. I hope that the awareness of the importance of experience, contacts, reputation, and prestige will be used more extensively in the future to promote our state interests in all spheres – above all, in diplomacy.”

Still, how can the experience of ambassadors or former foreign ministers be used for providing foreign policy recommendations?

“It is only possible to create something when the result of intellectual work is accepted or at least looked into by the country’s leadership, when somebody reads and heeds the advice. As we don’t have this, I see no sense for me to do so.”

Mr. Hryshchenko, are you going to make use of social media, such as Facebook or Twitter?

“I see no sense in this. It is like playing ping-pong in a steam room – nobody can see anything in the mist, everybody thinks he can return the ball and hit some target. I may be wrong. I think I will perhaps use social websites at a certain stage. But I want to feel this moment, when the discussion itself – or rather the need to think over some things – becomes somewhat more meaningful. In my view, many people use Facebook and Twitter as a flush tank and, on the other hand, it is self-promotion for them.

“If we had a more professional network which would have a certain reputation of a platform for a professional debate – no matter how heated it is, – then it would make sense. In that case, you will not just be showing how smart you are but you’ll be taking part in the formation of some new ideas.

“Of course, the positive use of Twitter and, at the same time, fakes is a new reality. Our diplomatic presence in Twitter is necessary. But it irks me when real work is substituted by self-promotion. Unfortunately, the more self-promotion is in social media, the more diplomatic failures occur.”