International Support of Kuchma Threatens Democracy in Ukraine

The presidential campaign in Ukraine is commonly regarded as not just another phase in the democratic process underway in one of Europe’s largest states, but also answers to a number of questions facing Ukrainian society, namely:

* Is the Ukrainian people, intimidated and deceived by the powers that be, prepared to reaffirm the choice made on December 1, 1991, and return to building an independent state?

* Is the international, particularly European, community of nations prepared to assist Ukrainian citizens in stopping Ukraine’s plummeting down the abyss of Soviet feudalism, turning into a powerful source of tensions in Europe, uncontrolled migration, hunger revolts, and territorial fragmentation?

Answering these questions is complicated by a large number of objective and subjective factors equally relevant to for both Ukraine’s general public and foreign partners. To some of them Ukraine’s sad current realities are directly connected with the notorious policy of “support of radical economic reforms” by the “guarantor” of everything in Ukraine, elected by the people of Ukraine.

Western partners, lured by reformist phraseology dating from 1994, hurried to support the “reformer.” Political support, billions of dollars of loans, and hundreds of millions worth of foreign investment became the foundation on which the current President and his sycophants strengthened their positions, reaching the level of dictatorial management. This reformist phraseology forced Western partners to look the other way when confronted with Ukraine’s unprecedented scope of corruption and undisguised contempt of the law, conniving at the openly Soviet approaches of all those ranking office holders (practiced both within Ukraine and on the international arena), having to deal with low-culture and arrogant Ukrainian partners. Western politicians seem to have overlooked the way the so-called Ukrainian government elite proceeded to mistreat and jeer at its own people, consciously leading its Western partners astray, ignoring commitments, and discrediting democratic values. Even the appointment of Premier Pavlo Lazarenko, who did not try overmuch to hide his voracity, did not stop the outpour of “international support of reform efforts.” What is behind all this? Interests? Miscalculated assessment of what is actually going on in Ukraine? Underestimation of the cynicism of the regime in this country? This is a different story, but the consequences can be appraised now. They are self-evident.

Of course, citizens of Ukraine are to blame for the situation that has developed in the first place; they have remained silent, thus encouraging the regime to mistreat and scorn them. But reducing the causes to this would be a major mistake.

Without international support the current regime would have no chance to behave as arrogantly in its own country. It was with money received from international institutions and individual countries that the huge repressive machine was built and has been maintained. Assisted by the Mafia and other criminal structures, it ruthlessly deals with those opposed to the acting President and keeps the entire Ukrainian populace intimidated. Without political and material support from foreign partners these “reform operetta” characters would not have stood a chance to keep in power even for a year. Moreover, this support disorients the population, begetting and asserting political apathy and disillusionment about one’s ability to oppose the existing regime.

The following theses could be formulated with regard to that “international support of the acting President’s reform efforts”:

1. The civilized world cannot support a constantly degrading polity with a semifeudal, Mafia system in both domestic and foreign political life. 30- 40 years back, in conditions of bipolar confrontation, this could have been possible (they may be bastards but they’re our bastards). Now that we have experience in the establishment and overthrow of dictatorial regimes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as well as examples of reforms in Central and Eastern European countries that have consistently worked to overcome the consequences of their totalitarian past, reform verbiage without actual reforms will not fool anybody.

2. One can speak about “world recognition of Ukraine’s foreign policy attainments” perhaps for the sake of calming one’s own fears or to consciously lead one’s own people astray. Such things are possible today only because of the dominant shadow policy extending to the foreign political domain. Foreign political loans received by Ukraine in 1995-97 against attractive reform declarations were used exclusively for strengthening the existing regime, largely due to the policy of overstated claims, disproportionate domestic goals, actual possibilities/resources, and foreign political targets. The period of foreign political accomplishments based on geopolitical speculations ended in early 1997 when Ukraine’s domestic political practice based on total falsehood became clear to all concerned.

3. Obvious foreign policy miscalculations that are well known abroad and jealously kept secret within Ukraine have resulted in this country’s actual political isolation. The information blockade, being an important political tool of the current chief executive, still allows the regime to pick the cream of big lies about Ukraine allegedly enjoying universal international support. Yet these so-called attainments will shortly manifest themselves in quite specific tangible damage (e.g., agreements with the Russian Federation, Moldova, Romania, Turkmenistan, etc.).

4. Assessments of Ukraine’s foreign political performance on the part of that “prominent political figure of modern Europe” (if one were to trust Mr. Ohryzko’s opinion), his entourage, and other participants in international processes are somewhat different. All over the world, foreign policy accomplishment is measured by the degree of integration into the international process, raising the level of security and international prestige of a given country. As for Ukraine’s homebred Talleyrands, they find it considerably easier to count such accomplishments by the number of visits and documents signed (although, remarkably, most of these are forgotten all about right after the signing ceremony), and by the number of statements made in support of the acting President’s policy. Even if his “political tourism” strongly reminds one of the recent past and such tours made by all those “outstanding political figures representing progressive African countries.” And the number of awards conferred abroad for “meritorious contributions” reminds one of the absence of one such decoration mentioned in one of so many anecdotes about Leonid Brezhnev: a ring in the nose conferred on behalf of the great people of Golden Coral Island.

Whether we like it or not, the world community estimates what goes on in Ukraine by comparing this country to others in Central and Eastern Europe. And this comparison is clearly not in Ukraine’s favor. In fact, all its “reform” practice over the past five years objectively compels the civilized world to keep this kind of Ukraine isolated. Evidence of this, among other things, is found in the neighboring countries’ determination to shortly introduce entrance visas binding on Ukrainian citizens.