Best get prepared

The difference between President Yanukovych’s current visit to the United States to take part in the UN General Assembly’s session, and his previous trip was that this visit had lots of positive signals addressing the international community and Ukraine.

To begin with, he addressed the UN, saying that Ukraine would save the world from the food crisis (here one can’t help wondering about the Ukrainian government’s own problems relating to the Derzhkomrezerv (State Food Reserve Committee), corruption, let alone grain supply problems).

Second, he declared that an agreement had been reached whereby “next April will see an international conference, held under the UN banner, marking the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster,” and that the year 2011 should be dedicated to solving this problem in Ukraine. An initiative that deserves every praise.

Third, [prior to his trip to Washington] Yanukovych had sent a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) about the need to have a more active dialog between the Ukrainian government and the diaspora. On September 20, his presidential website reinstated the 1932-33 Holodomor section. Was it a move made in keeping with political conjuncture or a small step back to normal?

Fourth, addressing the UN, President Yanukovych declared that Ukraine had become a full-fledged member of the international community; that his country was being treated seriously, and that he was proud “of our native land, of our well-deserved place in the world.” However, the Ukrainian head of state failed to have a dialog with diaspora representatives. When visiting NYC for the first time in April, Yanukovych found no time for a meeting with them. This time the diaspora didn’t want to meet with him, staging pickets and rallies instead, demanding that the Ukrainian president make certain moves to demonstrate his Ukrainian stand.

The UCCA letter to Yanukovych, signed by UCCA President Tamara Gallo-Olexy and Executive Secretary Marie Duplak, reads that President Yanukovych will hopefully realize that his current stand is erroneous.

They also have expressed their hope that he will shoulder the burden of bona fide service to his people, within and without Ukraine, and that he will demonstrate, with his concrete deeds, a change to his political course in the direction of constructive measures, both in the social and economic spheres. Russia is Ukraine’s neighbor (reads the UCCA letter); both countries have a long record of history full of events that are proof of enslavement and persecution. Ukraine must live in peace and accord with Russia, but remembering all these events. With partners like Valerii Soldatenko and Dmytro Tabachnyk, this president will never reach this understanding.

The Day asked Yevhen KAMINSKY, departmental head at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, to comment on Yanukovych’s visit to Washington and prospects for US-Ukrainian relationships.

Kaminsky: “All this should be considered in view of the presence of the Party of Regions and its leaders, particularly the current president who keeps changing his course, showing a different self from what we’re accustomed to seeing. I think he meant what he said as a man who has lived a long and complicated life, as a man who is adjusting to current realities, who keeps learning. Idealizing this, however, would be totally impossible, among other reasons because this president can resolve all problems only within an authoritarian system, where there is no struggle, as between two oligarchic clans, the Donetsk and the London one, headed by Firtash. After siding with either of them, Yanukovych would stop changing and become the one we saw before the presidential campaign. Should he embark on a path of his own and listen to analysts among his retinue, we would perhaps see a different person as head of a different state, someone quite unexpected. There is little likelihood of this being the case, considering the big pressure from those two oligarchic groups. There is, however, a purely human chance, that what we heard yesterday [Den carried this feature on September 24, 2010. — Ed.] was a statement made by a true Ukrainian.

“I think that the [re]appearance on the presidential website of the 1932-33 Holodomor feature was something to be expected. The thing is that our president’s milieu — where, frankly speaking, noted analysts are a rare occurrence — is adjusting to the situation, trying make his visit abroad as comfortable as possible. In this case, his visit was to the United States. This isn’t the result of an analysis. This is the result of an attempt to adjust. They [Yanukovych’s milieu. — Ed.] appear to ignore the simple truth that genuine analysts within the diaspora would see through their efforts and distinguish between truth and falsehood.

“I also think that when it came to meeting with people from the diaspora, no one took into consideration things like accusations of the current [Ukrainian] government of breaching freedom of the press. Also, there is the situation with Channel 5, TBi, SBU meddling with media affairs, the disappearance of a journalist in Kharkiv, and persistent rumors about Boiko, Firtash’s man, becoming the next prime minister of Ukraine. In my opinion, if this happens our country will turn into yet another territory of the Russian Federation. I also think that the analytical potential of the diaspora has been underestimated in this situation. For example, the language bill, submitted by Yefremov to the Verkhovna Rada, will fail to meet with the diaspora’s understanding and support, just as it will fail to meet with understanding and support in the Ukrainian thinking public quarters. Any sober-minded individual in Ukraine knows that there are absolutely no problems with the Russian language in this country, so that any ‘problems’ in this respect simply appear on Moscow directives. The diaspora is keenly aware of this fact, but far from all in Yanukovych’s retinue know as much, and some of them are acting on direct orders from the Kremlin. Therefore, our relationships with the diaspora should be assessed in terms of analysis and our president’s knowledge about the issue. Regrettably, I’m not sure that our current head of state receives unbiased data and analytical findings.

“Remember Liovochkin’s statement about signing an EU association agreement this December? What we heard next was that Yanukovych had agreed with EC President Jose Barroso that this would take place in a year’s time. Wasn’t this statement meant to discredit the current head of state? I think that our president should make certain decisions. This is not based on an analysis, simply my own opinion. Liovochkin wanted to demonstrate that the president had made all decisions in a better way than all his predecessors, while having used no analytical findings or unbiased data, period.

“As for Yanukovych’s interview at the Four Seasons Hotel — I mean his statement about Ukraine having embarked on the road leading to the European Union, carrying out pertinent plans and programs — I think what we actually have is an attempt, on the part of the president and his entourage, to demonstrate that Ukraine is a solid state, that they are working to keep Ukraine united, that there are no attempts to alter Ukraine’s strategic course. What will happen in the end? Few appear to be pondering this question. Nor would it be reasonable to associate Ukraine’s destiny with the current president’s stand. He must be really sure about Ukraine’s European choice, and that this choice will be implemented, that Ukraine will indeed join the European Union. Here one has to get back to the [oligarchic] clans and figure out which of them will get the upper hand in this [domestic] political confrontation. I don’t think that there are big oligarchic clans in Ukraine that are really interested in being ruled by the Kremlin. On the other hand, members of these clans are keenly aware that, should they comply with the requirements put forth by the West in regard to Ukraine, especially in terms of social progress, they would lose control over those in power in Ukraine; they would have to say good-bye to their current status as backstage political leadership, people who are being seriously reckoned with by Ukrainian society. Therefore, I wouldn’t link all our problems to the stand taken by our president. All these problems will be resolved in the course of an interclan struggle. Regrettably, this is as far as we’ve gone in Ukraine. I can’t say that Ukraine’s public opinion has a decisive influence on our head of state, much as I would like to say so. There is another aspect worth being considered: compared to Yanukovych’s predecessors, there aren’t any noticeable changes to Ukraine’s EU membership line. In fact, there are problems with the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and human rights. All this may cause EU to abruptly change its attitude toward Ukraine, resorting to pressure on Ukraine, rather than acting in accordance with the arrangements made with this country, as was the case in 2004-05.

“With regard to Yanukovych’s proposal to raise the level of relationships with the United States, setting up an analog of the Kuchma-Gore Commission, President Barack Obama could go along with it only in the context of the next presidential campaign, which is likely to begin next year. I don’t expect any dramatic changes to the White House’s current indifference [in regard to Ukraine], not under Obama. There could be some nuances in terms of the coming elections. I’d say any serious changes could be possible in case of the Republican candidate’s victory in 2012. Then such serious changes to US-Ukrainian relation would become an actual possibility in 2013, so that total misunderstanding would become understanding, with at least some of the promises given by both sides becoming a reality.”