Condoleezza’s smile

Condoleezza Rice last visited Ukraine four years ago. Since then much has changed in the lives of Ukrainians and in the life of the American guest herself. In 2001 she visited Kyiv as the president’s national security adviser and last week in the capacity of US Secretary of State. However, it is not her post that matters most. What does is the fact that Ukraine has played host to one of the most influential politicians in the current American administration. The climate of relations between Kyiv and Washington has also much improved. Most importantly, the former personal distrust between the leaders of the two nations is gone. This was evident in the distinguished guest’s mood. Four years ago she had a harsh, penetrating look. At the time the US was concerned over Ukraine’s sale of weapons to Macedonia, which was caught up in a military conflict with Albanians. During her visit on Dec. 7, 2005, she greeted everybody with her magical smile. The US Secretary of State’s smile is even more valuable if you consider her European tour. Recent reports that the CIA has secret prisons for terrorism suspects in Eastern Europe have caused an international stir.

Understandably, the changes in recent years are reflected in the speech of the foremost American diplomat. Her main message boils down to the fact that Ukraine, which has proclaimed itself a country capable of democratic development, must make greater efforts to defend democratic values. During her speech to the students of Taras Shevchenko National University she emphasized that the Orange Revolution was not just a triumph for the Ukrainian nation alone, but a triumph of democracy in general. “You spoke for voiceless individuals everywhere”, Rice stressed. “And while we can do whatever we can to encourage democracy here, to encourage non-governmental organizations to work to support democratic processes here, to provide election observers if that’s necessary and so forth, it really is more now up to you,” she said. “And yet people stood their ground and they insisted on a democratic resolution of the issue. And you got one. But now, you have to defend it. And that means you have to vote when you have the chance. It means you have to work for candidates when you have the chance. It means you have to ask tough questions of the candidates so that you know who you’re voting for,” Rice said. Summing up her hour-long speech, she said, “And so, we can help, but only Ukrainians now can secure their own democracy.”

The democratic idea dominated Rice’s speech. “The voice of Ukraine resounded loudly,” she pointed out. She also mentioned the challenges that Ukraine now faces, in particular the need to combat corruption and establish rule of law. On behalf of the US she promised to support Kyiv in its progress toward the WTO, the EU, and NATO, “if you decide that your future lies within NATO.” Her speech is proof that the US is really interested in Ukraine’s development. Condoleezza Rice was directly involved in developing US strategy to democratize the countries of the world.

Early this year the American leadership mentioned Ukraine along with Lebanon and Iraq while speaking about democratic transformations. Her remarks displeased many Ukrainian experts, who consider this comparison somewhat inappropriate. Now Ukraine matches the pattern of the American administration’s foreign policy concepts. We may argue with these concepts and try to argue our exceptional nature. The fact remains, however, that the US would like Ukraine to prove the effectiveness of its democratic development by achieving economic growth and high living standards. Apparently, that is when Ukraine will be mentioned in the group of other countries.

A number of stereotypes about Rice linger in connection with her educational background as a Sovietologist. The Russian leanings of Washington’s policies in the post-Soviet space were especially discernible during President Bush’s first term in office. It appears that Rice has revised her attitude toward Moscow somewhat. (She is still nostalgic about her conscious choice to study the Russian language and Sovietology). On Dec. 7 she voiced concern over the bill on NGOs that the Russian Duma passed in the first reading.

Rice expressed the hope that democratic principles will eventually take the upper hand. Her position is especially important against the background of another message from Russia. Last week President Putin called the last year in Russian-Ukrainian relations a “year of lost opportunities,” and complained that “unfortunately, Ukrainian politicians have not been appearing in Moscow too often lately, which is something we regret.” He probably forgot that his own visit to Kyiv was postponed in October, which was followed by another postponed visit at the prime-ministerial level. In any case, Rice’s criticism of Moscow does not mean that the US can somehow facilitate a normalization of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Western politicians have repeatedly hinted that they will not intervene to resolve problems between the two countries.

President Bush has not visited Ukraine yet, although he promised to do so by the end of this year. This visit will probably take place only after the 2006 parliamentary elections. Ukrainian journalists and experts joke that even though the current occupant of the White House has not visited Kyiv, at least the future one has, implying Rice’s possible participation in the 2008 US presidential race. However, the Secretary of State dismissed such speculations. “...it takes a special person to run for office or to run for any kind of office in the United States or any place else and I’ve just never seen myself as somebody who wanted to run for office,” she said. Perhaps her attitude will change over time.

The Secretary of State spoke very favorably of Ukraine. However, when she was fielding questions from the students, she gave the impression that she has only superficial knowledge of the state’s development. It appeared that she discovered Ukraine only after the Orange Revolution. “So when I think about Ukraine, I now think about that [the Orange Revolution],” the American guest admitted. Still, her key message was about the upcoming parliamentary elections. She said that the US is ready to help form a team of observers for the elections, at the same time emphasizing that Washington cannot be directly involved in the political process. “But we won’t be involved in the political process here because it’s not the job of the United States to choose the leaders of Ukraine; that’s the job of the Ukrainian people,” Rice said in response to a question about Washington’s political preferences.

She voiced her hope that the US will grant Ukraine market economy status in the nearest future. Kyiv received a similar political gift from the European Union the week before last. Rice reminded her listeners that the US Department of Commerce has certain procedures that have to be completed before Ukraine can be granted this status. “Now, the WTO has certain rules that you have to be able to meet, certain steps that you have to be able to take. And we can’t accelerate Ukraine beyond what it is capable of doing, but we want very much Ukraine to be a part of the WTO, so we’re working very hard,” she said. Rice also said that the US supports Ukraine’s aspirations to join the WTO. President Yushchenko said last week that Ukraine is waiting for a positive statement from the WTO summit in Hong Kong.

In recent days Ukraine has received a sufficient amount of understandable and clear signals. The main one boils down to the classic saying: it is up to drowning men to save themselves. There is willingness to support Ukraine, but only on condition that Kyiv is ready not only to accept but also act on this support. Everything now depends on whether Ukrainian politicians can correctly “decode” the signals they have been given and convert them into the required results.