• Українська
  • Русский
  • English
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty
Henry M. Robert

Steven PIFER: IT WILL BE UNFORTUNATE IF UKRAINE TURNS AWAY FROM THE ROAD OF REFORMS AND DEMOCRATIZATION

30 July, 1999 - 00:00

“It will be recalled, on the eve of the eighth anniversary
of our independence, that the U.S. political establishment was not too
enthusiastic about the emergence of several new countries at that time.
To what extent, from the U.S. viewpoint, has the assessment of the factor
of Ukrainian independence changed since then?”

“The American view of Ukraine's geo-political significance
has evolved a lot in the last seven years, and we see Ukraine now as a
major European country. But what we would like to do is see Ukraine as
a normal European country, that is, a democratic market economy fully integrated
into the political and economic life of Europe. This stems from the argument
that a stable, independent, and prosperous Ukraine is going to be a factor
that will help make Europe in the 21st century a more stable and secure
place. The importance of that kind of Ukraine is illustrated when you look
at some of the neighboring regions, such as the Balkans or the Caucasus,
a successful Ukraine can have a very positive influence on those areas”.

“What do you think are the most apparent obstacles to
Ukraine's successful movement toward becoming a normal European state?”

“I think the main issues are economic ones. Ukraine has
made a certain amount of progress on economic reform. It hasn't yet reached
the point where you have what you would expect to follow from economic
reform, which is economic growth, job creation, and increased tax payments.
That kind of economic development is going to be important not only for
improving living standards in Ukraine, but also for Ukraine to have the
resources to be a positive player in Europe. Those economic changes will
be necessary, for example, as Ukraine develops its relationship with the
European Union. Obviously, a reformed market economy is going to be a critical
criterion by which the European Union will evaluate Ukraine's progress.”

“Recently, Zbigniew Brzezinski called for supporting
independent Ukraine under any circumstances. Does this mean the United
States may support an independent, but undemocratic, Ukraine, a Ukraine
that carries out no market reforms?”

“The U.S. supports Ukraine, and what we are going to see
is Ukraine develop a market economy and also a democratic, a fully democratic
political system. And while Ukraine still has a way to go, it has also
made a lot of progress in eight years. I think probably we in the West
sometimes may have underestimated just how difficult it is to effect fairly
major changes coming from the system that Ukraine began with in 1991. But
our view of Ukraine is that of continuing down the path of democratization
and building the market economy. That's going to be Ukraine that offers
the best future for the people of Ukraine. It's also Ukraine that we think
is going to be the best partner of the United States. So we are going to
support continued movement along those paths, and it will be unfortunate
for Ukraine to turn away from that direction.”

“Do you think it would be more important for Ukraine
not only to receive IMF and World Bank soft loans but also be involved
in international economic mechanisms, be admitted to the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and enlist Washington's support on a project for creating a “Ukrainian”
route of Caspian oil export to Europe?”

“Right now I do not think it is an ’either or situation'.
You want to have support from the IMF and the World Bank, you want to be
moving along the path of integration with the international economic institutions,
you want to accelerate the case of your accession to the World Trade Organization.
You want to create conditions where international investors want to come
and invest large sums of money in Ukraine. I think the IMF and the World
Bank programs are important for Ukraine in the near term. But Ukraine cannot
and Ukraine should not want to have to count on those programs for the
medium and long term. For example, joining the World Trade Organization
is going to be hard because it exposes Ukraine to international competition
which can be difficult, but that's what is going to make Ukrainian companies
more efficient and more effective, like their competitors on the world
market. It means creating conditions here that draw in international investment.
There is now about $2.8 billion of international investment in Ukraine.
Of that amount $500 million is American investment. We are the largest
investor, but that's a very small sum. There is $6 billion of American
investment in Poland, and we need to have Ukraine catch up to Poland on
that score. On the specific question of the pipeline, there actually has
been considerable American support for the pipeline in the form of a Trade
Development Agency grant of $750,000 to look at the economic viability
of the pipeline. That study is due to be finished this summer. One of the
things it will look at are the demand factors for Caspian oil in Central
Europe. I think what this study can do is help interest companies by showing
here that there will be demand for Caspian oil in countries like Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech republic. That will be one of the things that will
help begin to create interest on the part of the private sector, because
again what I think Ukraine wants is investment to help finish the Odesa-Brody
pipeline and also build an extension of it into Poland. Private investors
will decide to parriciapte in that project when they see that it's commercially
viable and that they can make a decent profit on it.”

“Some members of the left-wing in Ukraine affirm that,
since President Kuchma's administration is very weak and the economic situation
in this country is not only improving but even worsening with every passing
year, the support granted to President Kuchma (and now also a presidential
candidate in the next election) by the West is aimed at keeping Ukraine
weak. Could you comment on this?”

“It is wrong to say that the Untied States and the West
want to see a weak Ukraine. First of all, a weak Ukraine is not going to
help build a more stable and secure Europe. It is going to be a problem
of instability. We think Ukraine can actually be part of the answer. We
do not want to see it part of the problem. On the economic and commercial
interests of the United States a weak Ukraine doesn't help our economic
relations. If you look at countries with which we have the best economic
relations, they are countries with strong and very well-developed economies.
It is our expectation that as the Ukrainian economy becomes stronger, becomes
more stable, and begins to consolidate institutions of the market, it is
going to increase market opportunities, it is going to increase investment
opportunities. A weak Ukraine would mean limited opportunities for an increase
in economic interaction. So I think there is an interest on the part of
the United States both for geo- strategic reasons and for economic reasons
to want to see Ukraine build a stronger economy and become more prosperous.”

“We would not like Western support to Ukraine to be
personified. It would be of paramount importance for us if the United States
did not give our anti-Western-minded politicians a chance to say that Washington
backs up an anti- Ukrainian regime.”

“Well you are asking me to fight a battle of perceptions,
which is sometimes very difficult to do. I've head others say that the
United States has more influence over the IMF process than is really the
case, and that because the United States allowed pauses to happen in the
EFF disbursements, we are somehow not supporting President Kuchma. These
perceptions are awfully hard to take on. What the United States is trying
to do in Ukraine is support those objectives that we think are in Ukraine's
interests and our interests. We've tried to do that in a way that we felt
was consistent with our own principle of not intruding into what is a domestic
political decision for Ukraine.”

“You have repeatedly pointed out that Ukraine has problems
with freedom of the press. Does Washington pay attention to this? Is this
the subject of official negotiations?”

“When you look at questions like freedom of the press,
criticism of the government is one of the major factors. There is in the
Ukrainian press a wide range of opinion, including a lot of criticism of
the government (including from time to time in The Day ). At the
same time, there have been some questions that we've had regarding the
treatment of individual papers, and we have raised questions about that.
What we're hoping to see is that the opportunities for a free press expand
and Ukraine keeps moving in that direction as it moves down the democratic
path.”

“Unlike many others, we sound an alarm about press freedom
infringement, not only when it directly deals with
The Day .
On the one hand, we are pleased to be an indicator of the remnants of democracy
in this country, for we are an opposition newspaper. On the other hand,
we are disappointed that the number of publications that could express
an independent opinion is steadily declining. We gave numerous examples
of regional publications, in particular, about the recent suspension of
broadcasting by four Crimean TV companies, perhaps in connection with Mr.
Kuchma's vacation there. We are extremely worried that tax agencies are
being used, with top leadership consent, the way the Soviet secret police
once was. We raise this point so acutely because we have seen all too well
the origin of problems in neighboring Belarus, where all opposition leaders
are in exile. We hope Ukraine will overcome this ailment, but we would
like to know your point of view. Another question: to what extent do you
think it is possible, precisely by external methods and in normal conditions,
to hold authorities inclined to stifle elementary democratic freedoms?”

“There is a huge difference between what we see with regard
to the press in Belarus and what we see in Ukraine. I think there is an
understanding here that a vibrant democracy needs to have a full and really
functional press, and that's going to be part of the criteria by which
Ukraine is accepted in Europe. The situation in Ukraine eight years after
it became an independent country has changed considerably. I mean, you
have a press here that was unheard-of when I was assigned to the embassy
in Moscow ten years ago. We just want to see that trend continue.”

“When the USSR existed, the United States displayed
very serious concern over the protection of human rights. At that time,
the Soviet people had a very vague idea of human rights. Now we have a
better idea of this. But human rights violations in this country are perhaps
even more glaring than in Soviet times. However, we no longer hear such
critical voices from the West, particularly from the US. Does it not seem
to you that this policy is somewhat unwise?”

“Actually, we do pay a lot of attention to the human rights
situation here in Ukraine. You can see in the report the Department of
State puts out annually with regard to every country in the world, including
Ukraine — we can certainly make a copy of that available to you the assessment
that the U.S. Government has of the human right situation here in Ukraine.
This is a very detailed report that comes out every year and looks at both
the progress but also some of the problems.”

“I do not know if it is obvious for the United States
that now the Ukrainian government in fact breaks not only civil rights
and freedoms, as was the case in the Soviet Union, but also tries to violate
basic human rights, including the most sacred one, the right to live. There
functions in Ukraine a sinister mechanism of the annihilation of unsuitable
businesses. Any entrepreneur can tell you privately how greatly he depends
on the local authorities and fiscal bodies. Instead of protecting the entrepreneur,
the state literally destroys him and all other people working with him.
Do you think it is worth shifting the focus from a formalist view of human
rights protection to more specific instances?”

“My one-sentence assessment is that I would find it hard
to compare the kind of problems from the human rights angle that you had
in the Soviet Union with some of that arise today in Ukraine. You have
lots of opposition parties here, you have a press here that represents
a wide variety of viewpoints and has been critical of the government, there
is freedom of emigration that was typically a very important issue for
the United States. I am not trying to say that there are no problems, there
are issues here; it is not yet a perfect democracy. I mean, in the United
States I do not think we have a perfect democracy, there are problems.
But I'd have to say that I think the situation in Ukraine is far better
for the people in terms of the traditional human rights concerns than it
was in the Soviet Union.”

“Both your speeches and U.S. press publications (in
particular, The Washington Post ) repeatedly stressed that what
is important for the U.S. is not who will become president of Ukraine,
but that Ukraine develop a democratic process. Does this mean the United
States is now preoccupied with the development of democracy in Ukraine,
especially in the run-up to the presidential elections? To what extent
seriously and adequately is the U.S. going to participate in the international
monitoring of the preparation for and the course of the elections in Ukraine?”

“My government is a proponent of democracy. Basically the
logic of that position is you accept whoever the people of Ukraine choose
to be their president. We do place a very strong weight on the democratic
process. Looking at the election process, the United States is going to
watch with great interest what happens not only on October 31, but also
in the run-up to the elections. We've seen now four national elections
in Ukraine. Each has had problems, but I think the bottom line judgment
of international observers was that in the end the results reflected the
way people voted at the ballot box. That was certainly my experience when
I observed the parliamentary elections in March 1998. We saw lots of problems,
things that would have been really problematic in the United States, such
as people voting outside the voting booths, sometimes husbands and wives
consulting right there. These are things that technically shouldn't happen,
but they are not big problems. The make- up of the Rada that emerged, I
think in our judgment reflected the way people voted in March. So there
is this tradition of four elections, and we want to see that tradition
continue. And we will watch with great interest as the election takes place,
but also the run- up to the election.

“If your want to ask what is the U.S. view on the election,
I'll answer that now. First and foremost, this is an election for Ukrainians
to decide. And what the U.S. government is going to say is that we will
support the principles — principles of strong relations between the United
States and Ukraine, the principles of continued democratization in this
country, the principle of Ukraine developing a full and prosperous free
market economy. And we will support those forces in Ukraine that share
those principles, and want to work towards those objectives. But beyond
that it would not be appropriate for us to talk about particular names.
That's a choice for Ukrainians to make based on their vision of which way
Ukraine should go in the future.”

“The experience of Ukrainian national elections may
be a little marred if we look at the problems of local government. Please
tell us: do the Kyiv mayoral elections and what followed it also confirm
your optimism that everything is OK in Ukraine regarding elections, vote
counting, the law and the court as such?”

“With regard to the actual counting process, it was our
conclusion in the March election of 1998, and I think that there are similar
rules in place now, that in fact the counting process will be transparent.
As we understand the rules, there will be procedures in place to allow
a wide variety of observers at each individual polling station to observe
and monitor not only the balloting, but also the election count. And the
system, we think, is sufficiently transparent that if some, for example,
non-governmental organization wishes to, it could actually conduct its
own parallel count. And I think that kind of transparency creates confidence
that the count is going to be legitimate, or if there is a problem, it
will be caught.

“With regard to the court case concerning the result of
the Mayoral election, we are still trying to sort that out (interview took
place July 28 — Ed.

).”

“The visit by Vice President Al Gore and the session
of the Kuchma-Gore commission were planned for September. Will there be
any changes, will this bilateral commission hold its session?”

“There was actually a planned session of the US-Ukrainian
binational commission for the Summer, but both sides felt it would be more
convenient to postpone it.”

“For how long?”

“One of the things Ambassadors should not do is make announcements
that more properly belong to the President of Ukraine and the Vice- president
of the United States.”

“Were it not for U.S. assistance, the Ukrainian peacekeeping
mission in the Balkans might as well have remained a non-starter. Is the
U.S. going to support Ukraine's probable participation in the reconstruction
of the Balkans, particularly Yugoslavia, for example, via the Pact of Stability
for South-Eastern Europe?”

“First, I think Ukraine can be a very positive force in
Kosovo and the Balkans. So we have been very supportive in the United States
of Ukraine's participation in KFOR, and we have spoken for some time politically
about the importance of Ukraine taking part in that force. We recognize
that the economic situation of the Ukrainian military is difficult. Although
it is our general rule that in peacekeeping operations like Kosovo countries
should pay their own way we have in this case made an exception for Ukraine.
We have informed the Ukrainian military that we would be prepared to supply
a certain amount of in-kind goods and services to assist the Ukrainian
contingent in Kosovo. As to the effort for reconstruction assistance to
Kosovo, and economic development of Balkans more generally, is still being
formulated. But I would hope that Ukraine would have a fall opportunity
to participate in that. Part of it I think is for Ukraine to make sure
there is a clear understanding of what contributions it can make, what
kinds of companies, what kinds of reconstruction efforts it could do best.
And I think it would be important and useful for Ukraine to advertise exactly
what it can do.”

“Do you ever entertain the thought that East European
countries — Ukraine, Moldova, the Transcaucasian states, etc. —
need, not less than the Balkans, a plan for their development, as important
as to be compared to the Marshall Plan? Although we, thank God, have not
had bloodshed similar to that in the Balkans.”

“Certainly, there are needs for economic assistance in
Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus. What you have is just a fact of political
life — the situation in Yugoslavia over the last five months has focused
people's attention on that part of the world. Traditionally, it has been
a very unstable part, and the question is whether you can in fact integrate
them into Europe in a way that makes them not a source of attention and
instability in the future. I think building that kind of more stable Balkans
is good for Ukraine, and I think Ukraine can also help in that process
of creating a more stable situation in the Balkans. That's one of the reasons
why my government has come out in favor of Ukraine being a full participant
in the Stability Pact process for South-East Europe.”

“Lately, Ukraine has been increasing the export of weapons,
even to such sensitive regions as countries in Africa. What is the U.S.
stand on this matter? How can the United States appraise probable Ukrainian
military and technical cooperation with Syria and Libya, which recently
had UN sanctions lifted?”

“This is a complex issue, in part because the United States
itself is a major arms exporter. And I do not think I can tell you with
a straight face that all American arms exports are stabilizing and good,
and all other arms exports by other countries are a problem. In terms of
the arms export policy of Ukraine what we look at of course is control,
very tight control, of weapons and technology as related to the weapons
of mass destruction. There is a very small number of countries that we
in the United States consider state-sponsors of terrorism, and we do ask
that Ukraine not export weapons to those countries. One of American laws
deals with countries that the United States government has found to be
state-sponsors of terrorism. In those laws the Congress has provided for
certain sanctions against countries that engage in certain types of military
cooperation. So sometimes military cooperation with certain countries would
be a problem because of American law, but I think we've had a very good
dialogue with Ukraine over the last two years on this, and I think Ukraine
understands now the issues raised by American law. We also ask, which I
think is sort of international common sense, to look at situations and
see if an arms sale contributes to a conflict? In other words, to take
into account political consequences of arms sales to a particular country
or a particular region. But my sense is that Ukraine in fact does try to
weigh those factors when it's looking at its arms export.”

“A few days ago, the authority of Belarus president
Aleksandr Lukashenko expired. The U.S. State Department has only made a
statement on this subject. Many Ukrainians think the United States might
have taken a firmer and clearer stand. Developments similar to those in
Belarus are also possible, though not too probable, in Ukraine. How would
the U.S. react in this case?”

“I think there were serious questions in the United States
regarding the way the Belarusian Constitution was changed to prolong the
term of Mr. Lukashenka's presidency. There are also concerns about many
other Mr. Lukashenka's practices which are seen as undemocratic. As a result,
US- Belarusian relations, which five years ago were actually very warm,
have cooled significantly. American engagement with Belarus now is actually
very narrow as a result of policy choices that Mr. Lukashenka has made.
Happily, I do not face that kind of situation in Ukraine. I don't expect
to.”




Rubric: