On democracy and sanctions, the tools of the US

Rob Berschinski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the US Department of State, has recently visited Ukraine. It was his second trip to our country – the past year he accompanied Samantha Power, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, in her June visit to Kyiv. “It was the first time I was in Ukraine down to the South, to Odesa and Kherson,” the diplomat has started a talk with The Day’s journalist. “Those were very interesting places to see, given that the purpose of my trip was largely focused on Crimea. There were talks about other issues as well, but I really wanted to focus on Crimea for the trip. I spoke to a wide variety of people both within the government and civil society. I met a number of Crimean Tatars: Mustafa Dzhemilev, Refat Chubarov, Lenur Islamov; and then five or six people, who were members of the Kherson Mejlis. Also, while I was in Kherson I met Natalia Popovych, presidential representative to Crimea.”

So, what impressions you’ve got from the talks?

“The facts of what’s going on in Crimea are pretty well known, despite the fact that there is not a ton of great monitoring, which has been one of the topics I’ve been interested in discussing. But the repression that the Crimean Tatar population and other pro-Ukrainians in Crimea have been under during the occupation has been a topic that I’ve covered in depth. And it’s always great to hear directly from people that have been personally impacted – what it has meant in terms of their lives. But the egregious violations of human rights: murders, disappearances, raids, the elimination of Ukrainian and Tatar languages from daily discourse, just the fear that permeates Crimea were what most of my conversation dealt with. The fact that families are now separated – you have, as you know obviously, members of the Mejlis who can no longer enter back into Crimea, the total and utter lack of press freedom, all of those issues.”

And following the meetings, what will be the result of them: a report, a recommendation?

“Well, I think of what we’ve heard in the last few months out of the national leadership in Ukraine, from the President, the Foreign Minister, is a concerted effort to organize a strategy around Crimea. The purpose of my government is to meet with government officials and gain a better understanding about how they expect to move forward, and then what the US government, as such a strong partner of Ukraine’s government, can do to support those efforts. Our position has been clear for a long time in terms of totally rejecting the occupation and illegal annexation, maintaining the sanctions until the occupation ends. But I wanted these conversations to be about what more we can do in partnership with the government and the people of Ukraine to make sure that the occupation stays as an issue that is known worldwide, and that the abuses that are going on in Crimea are well known.”

And how will you do this?

“We have a number of different tools. Certainly, the sanctions and raising the costs on Russia in its own right is an important tool. Also, we can be speaking out publicly and privately through the media and through speeches that our senior leaders give. None of this is final, we still need to work through what makes sense, but we can be working on how to bring free and independent media back into the media space in Crimea, on IDPs – all of these things are where I think the work should be going.”

What about Donbas? Will you monitor the occupied territories in the east of Ukraine as well?

“The visit’s really focused on Crimea, but that’s not to say that we haven’t had a number of conversations about Donbas. I’ve been particularly struck by a meeting with Maria Savchenko. I met with her with Ambassador Power back in June, but as you know with the trial moving forward and Nadia’s hunger strike, she’s just really become the embodiment of a brave Ukrainian standing up against a lawless system. That’s just been an inspirational experience, notwithstanding how horrific it is for her as an individual and for her mother. An interesting story is when I was down in Kherson, after meeting with the oblast head, she and I went out, and there was a rally right in front of her office building. Concerned Ukrainians were rallying in support of Nadia. It was just amazing to see.”

What can be done in the world, what kind of pressure should the world countries apply, including the US, in order to free Savchenko?

“I think what we’ve seen even within the last week is just an amazing outpouring of support for Savchenko, and condemnation of what the Russian government is doing. So, from the US side you’ve seen public leaders from across our political spectrum – Vice President Biden and Secretary Kerry, but also both Republican and Democratic members of our Congress – speaking out on this. I can also say there have been private conversations at high levels between the US government and the Russian government about her case. And then you’ve also seen that from figures around the world – Mogherini, and the EU, and other European leaders. Hopefully, those voices will have an impact.”

We haven’t heard a word on Ukraine from Trump. Major candidates – Clinton, Rubio, and others – have commented on that, but not him.

“I’m not going to comment on the statements of any of the individuals that are running for office in the United States, that’s their decision.”

Anyway, do you see any perspectives that these demands to free Savchenko would be heard in Russia?

“I don’t know. What I can say is that the situation with respect to human rights in Russia continues to decline at an alarming pace. And the imprisonment of Nadia Savchenko is only one of the more egregious examples of this larger trend. It’s what the Russian government has done through its ‘foreign agents’ law and through laws on undesirable organizations, and through anti-extremism laws. It’s the culture of fear, the idea that you can be put behind bars for commenting on Vkontakte or Facebook. There are new reports out just within the last few days that Russia is going to force the UN Human Rights office to leave. It’s only a process of steps that ultimately will weaken Russia, that is not in Russia’s best interest, and that’s the message we communicate to the government. Whether they hear it or not, I don’t know.”

But do you see some leverage or mechanism of making Russia come back to international law and norms?

“It’s a hard one. As you know, we in the United States deal with Russia on any number of issues, on a daily basis, whether it’s Syria, or Iran, or North Korea. So, on some issues we need to cooperate, on others – as with human rights, as with Russian aggression in Donbas and the illegal annexation of Crimea, we are very clear with them where we stand, and we use the tools that are available to us. There are strong sanctions on human rights, the so-called Magnitsky law. Our hope is that these tools will have an impact.”

Maybe now you can create the “Savchenko list”?

“Various people have raised the so-called Savchenko list to me, and at this point we don’t have a position. I’ve asked those in civil society who are working on the list to bring the information. The United States, as you know, has a number of sanction tools, so this is something we will have to look at.”

Do you believe this kind of sanctions will have an effect? There are experts saying that the sanctions against Russia are useless in regard of changing Putin’s behavior.

“I don’t know what’s in President Putin’s head. What I can say is the Russian economy is suffering. That has a lot to do with the price on oil, but no doubt sanctions also play a role in that. Again, our sanctions are not punitive, that’s not what they are for. They are not meant to punish, they are meant to impose a cost in hope that a government – in this case, Russia – will move in a different direction.”

How would you explain that according to the report by Freedom House, Ukraine is a partly free country?

“I can’t speak for Freedom House. What I can say is that in the years since Euromaidan Ukraine has made a great progress in terms of moving on the European and democratic path. I think that the explosion of civil society in the country is simply remarkable. I travel a lot through Europe and Southern-Central Asia, and there is no place that is more inspiring than when I’m here in Ukraine speaking to young people that are driving reforms. That said, the United States has been very clear that while progress has been made in a number of different areas, there’s still much work to be done – the work on anti-corruption, obviously. From Vice President Biden’s statements recently we’ve been clear that much more needs to be done.”

But what can you say about human rights in Ukraine compared to Europe in general? Even Hungary is not considered a liberal democracy. Why is this happening? They were meant to be an example for Ukraine.

“Ultimately I think this is an issue that Europe is going to need to solve. I do a lot of work on Hungary, I’ve made several trips to Hungary in the last few months. I think that there are a number of factors in play. Unfortunately, the refugee crisis has given certain leaders, and the leader of Hungary is one of those, Fico is another, the means to use xenophobic language for political gain. Actually, some of these events have happened while I’ve been on my trip, so I haven’t had a chance to read on it deeply. You bring up Fico, but perhaps, given the outcome of the elections in Slovakia, some of their language wasn’t as useful as he may have thought. But our message to Viktor Orban has been clear: that sort of language is counter-productive; it does nothing for Hungary’s security. And in fact, statements along the lines of lumping together people that are fleeing just horrendous conditions and war, and conflating them with terrorists, actually send exactly the wrong message, and embolden the terrorists. So, we’ve been clear on that point.”

In your opinion, what role should European leaders and mass media play, in order for Europe to be more inclusive to Ukraine?

“I think our overarching approach to mass media is there should be free and independent media. So, I’m not going to dictate what position media should have. Within the United States there are a range of views across our media spectrum, and I think that’s good. People can read a range of views and decide for themselves. In terms of national leaders, again, I think that Europe has been strong and the EU is strongest as an organization when it adheres to its founding values, and part of those values is tolerance and inclusion. So, those European leaders that speak out on those issues, are speaking out in the spirit of what we feel makes for a strong transatlantic community.”

We know the book Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville, and there are a lot of books about democracy now. Can you compare democracy in times of Tocqueville and now? How is it evolving?

“I think that’s the most intellectual question I’ve ever received in an interview. And I must admit that the last time I read Tocqueville was some number of years ago, so I’ve probably forgotten most of it. I think democracy in America is robust. I know the world is watching our current political campaign and that we have had certain candidates say things that I think are inconsistent with American values. And I know that that’s concerning to the rest of the world. At the end of the day, I think that American democracy is strong enough, that the values we have had since our founding and that Tocqueville remarked on in his book will prevail and the voices of discrimination and xenophobia are not reflective of what the majority of Americans think.”

What is your wish for The Day’s readers?

“Ukraine is an inspiring place. This is a country in which the people have spoken and said ‘we want a better future for our kids and grandkids.’ And meeting with young leaders in civil society and in the Rada is incredibly inspiring, how passionately these people feel about the necessary reforms. But these reforms are hard, and I think you see that in what’s going on within the Ukrainian government in recent weeks. So, our message there has been clear: various parties and political leaders need to put personal differences aside and continue to move forward on the reform agenda towards decentralization, anti-corruption – these are the important things. And as Ukraine moves forward on these tough but vital issues, the United States is going to be strongly committed to Ukraine’s side.”