Information Pressure on Kyiv From Abroad Strengthens
Leonid Kuchma has received two messages from George Bush in the past few days. These differing messages are in contrast to each other by their tone. One expresses support and hope for cooperation. The other, read by US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pasqual directly warns that the US might discontinue aid to Ukraine unless Mr. Kuchma takes serious measures to democratize society and liberalize the economy. Perhaps by coincidence, The Financial Times published on the same day a letter from George Soros who calls on President Kuchma to relinquish his powers to the Prime Minister if this is required by the results of investigation. The financier thinks the West “must take a firm stand, condemning the behavior and actions of Mr. Kuchma.”
As we go to press, no official Ukrainian institutions have publicly reacted to those utterances. One of them, which asked The Day not to disclose its identity, said there would surely be a reaction next week. This means the authorities are again showing “slow reaction” in face of the global and instantaneous spread of information.
In reality, Mr. Soros’s letter contains nothing new. The financier has always been critical, to say the least, of the Ukrainian state. Mr. Soros’s articles in The Financial Times and The International Herald Tribune at least testified that he always remembered a country, of which he has a specific idea and perhaps designs of his own. Mr. Soros admitted immediately after the presidential elections he did not believe in a “new Kuchma.” Some US experts also shared this view. It is perhaps they to whom the current US administration trusts, judging by the latest comments of its representatives.
It would be wrong to interpret Mr. Soros’s words as a demand: after all, he has the right to express his own view on this problem as does anybody else whose opinion The Financial Times deems fit to print.
The belligerent attitude of the younger Bush administration toward the Ukrainian leadership is a somewhat different case. “The situation is not so simple,” Ukrainian diplomats say in this connection, refraining from official comment. The situation is perhaps this way because it is difficult to draw the line that distinguishes advice from an attempt to interfere. Add to this Ukraine’s undoubted dependence on good relations with Washington.
The situation is not simple also because it begins to resemble the scenarios already employed in Yugoslavia, the Philippines, and some other countries, when a change of power was preceded by strongly worded statements from the US State Department and mass campaigns in Western newspapers. But Ukraine is a far cry from the Yugoslavia of Milosevic.
The situation is not simple also because it is very easy to stir up anti-Western feelings in society — hardly to the benefit of either side. Meanwhile, the latest issue of British weekly Economist pointed out that the scale of the bugging operation shows that some very influential and competent political forces want to remove Mr. Kuchma from office. According to The Economist, the only beneficiary to this scandal is the Kremlin.
Obviously, Ukraine should solve its undeniable problems by itself. This applies to the freedom of the press, human rights, the problems of civil society, and business climate. But it is not a good idea to use the Gongadze tragedy as a flag.
And obviously, it would be in Ukraine’s interest to prove that what it seeks is not US aid but recognition as a democratic country to be reckoned with, not dictated to.
