A struggle between public and private interests

Last week Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, at the United States Department of State, Thomas Melia paid a visit to Ukraine. On November 16, 2010, he took part in the first session of an intergovernmental working group on the questions of democracy and rule of law, which took place in Kyiv. This fact in itself proves that the new US Administration pays close attention to Ukraine, specifically the issues of democracy and freedom of expression. Why is freedom in decline around the world, according to Freedom House, for the 5th consecutive year? Does the American administration have, like the EU, any leverage over the Ukrainian government, that could force it to adhere to democratic principles like freedom of expression and assembly? Is Washington ready to impose sanctions on Ukrainian officials who violate civic rights? These and other questions are raised in The Day’s exclusive interview with Thomas MELIA.

“There are several reasons. First of all, every country has its own story, and even in the same country somethings may be improving, while others are getting worse — every country is complicated and unique. But at the same time when you look around the world over the last five years, there are some recurring themes, and that’s what Freedom House editors highlighted. One of them is the broad efforts by many governments to restrict civil society through NGO laws that make it difficult for them to operate and get financing, etc. Another is increasing controls on the media in different places, whether it is the public broadcasting, radio and television being brought under the control of governing parties, or the harassment of journalists reporting on critical events and scandals. So, all of this is about fundamental freedoms: freedom of expression and freedom of association. And we see that also extending to the Internet nowadays.”

What are the reasons for the decline? Perhaps external factors, like the economic crisis?

“I think that the financial crisis, which much of the world has experienced in the last few years, has certainly aggravated political tensions in many places and made it easier for political parties, whether they are in government or not, to adopt more populist rhetoric and programs that make it easier to demonize and denounce opponents. So, politics has become intolerant in many places in the democratic world and in the non-democratic world. And the economic crisis aggravates that, making people less patient, less tolerant of their rivals. So, I think there is a connection with the global economic downturn. But it’s also the work of governments and individuals in them that are looking out for their own personal interests rather than the public’s interests. Obviously, the people of every country in the world want to live in freedom. Surveys consistently show that people want the freedom to express their opinions and not be punished for it, to meet with their friends and associates for various discussions. So, the universal desire for freedom, I think, is consistent. The efforts of small numbers of the people in countries where they can grab all the power is to keep that power and resources for themselves. So, it is a battle between the public and the private in many places.”

A publication in The Washington Post (“Freedom in decline,” January 14, 2011) contained the following phrase: “When the United States does not advocate strongly for freedom, other democracies tend to retreat and autocracies feel emboldened. If the disturbing trend documented by Freedom House is to be reversed, Mr. Obama will need to make freedom a higher foreign policy priority.” Is this indeed so? Has the US stepped back in its advocacy for freedom?

“No, I think that’s not true at all. Just in the past days you could see President Obama in his meeting with the Chinese president speak very directly about human rights concerns; the Secretary of State was in the Middle East last week, in Doha, and, with governmental officials from 12 countries in front of her, she called for them to move toward reforms, political reforms. Certainly the rhetoric and public statements from the highest officials of our government are pro-democracy and pro-human rights. That’s also reflected in the work that the rest of us do. That’s why I’m here in Ukraine this week; it’s a reflection of the administration’s commitment to be engaged in promoting freedom and democracy in Ukraine, as well as in many other places. So I just think this is a misapprehension, a misunderstanding of what’s going on in US policy. In terms of the financial investment in supporting democracy around the world, it’s not gone down during the Obama administration but up. More money is being spent by the US government through USAID on different programs around the world, in support for the National Endowment for Democracy — the budget has gone up, and in the work that my part of the State Department, the DRL (democracy, rights, and labor) does, we have larger budgets to give grants to people around the world. I think we do a different kind of public diplomacy than the previous administration, but I don’t think there’s been any reduction of the commitment to support democracy and democratic activists.”

In his publication for The Financial Times (“US democracy has little to teach China,” January 17, 2011), Francis Fukuyama says: “Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern.” Is not it advantageous for the US sometimes to shut its eyes on human rights and freedoms in some countries with efficient governments that are able to implement reforms, but are less democratic?

“There is a temptation to think that strong governments get more things done for the people. Every society has competing ideas about what the right policies are, whether we should have higher taxes, or lower taxes, whether we should protect the farms or forests. Humans always disagree about what the priorities should be. So that’s why we need open media and open political discussions so that we can consider alternatives, and maybe change our minds from time to time based on new information and new circumstances. So, to have different political forces represented in a parliament, and even have a government that sometimes has one branch controlled by one party and another branch controlled by a different party, like we have now in Washington, that’s not an impediment to social development. That’s a reflection of human nature and the complexity of modern society. I think there is not much evidence at all that non-democratic centralized governments deliver better for their people. If you look around the world, the most prosperous and peaceful countries tend to be those that have multi-party politics, whether it’s in Western Europe or in other parts of the world. Pluralist politics is usually a necessary part of economic and social development.”

Let’s come back to Ukraine. Soon after publication of the Freedom House report, publications emerged in Russian periodicals under the headline: “Ukraine is moving towards Russia,” whereas in the German newspaper Financial Times Deutschland Ukraine has been named among the countries where democracy has failed. Does the US share this opinion, and overall, how dangerous for the development of democracy and freedom of expression in Ukraine is the activity of the current Ukrainian government, which speaks about integration into the EU, but in reality is moving towards Russia?

“The Freedom House report I think is important to take note of, but it is not an isolated analysis. Other think tanks and other independent observers have all spoken about the same developments that we in the US government are also concerned about. The conduct of the local elections in October was problematic in several important respects. Ukrainians have acknowledged that. The president of the country, Viktor Yanukovych, has said that the country needs to improve the management of elections. Everybody agrees about that. We’ve spoken about the recent charges that have been brought against officials in the previous government for corruption. It has the appearance of selective prosecution.

The battle against corruption here in Ukraine, which everybody agrees is necessary, needs to be done in a way that is fair and balanced. And that’s what we are concerned about. There are a number of other things that could and should be done at the same time: certain laws that are being discussed, anti-corruption laws that we hope will be enacted very soon; certainly other things that the government should do, to make its own officials’ financial interests more transparent to the public. So there are a number of things that could happen there. But if the only thing that is done is prosecution of political rivals, than it looks like it’s not about fighting corruption, it’s about punishing political rivals.”

During his recent visit to Ukraine EU Commissioner Stefan Fule said that Europe can make any kind of compromises with Ukraine, except for those concerning human rights and freedom of expression. Can the US act in a similar way?

“Yes, our view is the same.”

Human rights advocates say that Ukrainian officials should not be given visas, as a way to show them that the US or Europe do not accept their attempts to curtail the freedom of speech in Ukraine.

“I don’t think the situation now requires actions like that. I think we’re engaging on this, as I said, on a continuous basis. And I think the Ukrainian government is hearing us, and I am hopeful that good choices will be made in the interest of Ukrainian democracy. Our expectation is that Ukraine will continue to move toward consolidating democratic habits and institutions. So, we are engaged right now, we are not in the business of pushing Ukraine away.”

What leverage can the US apply to Ukraine to make it fulfill the fundamental rights of democracy: freedom of speech and assembly?

“All the important decisions about these issues will be made by Ukrainians, in the government and in the broader society. We can’t make these decisions; we can’t force Ukraine to do anything. All we can do is to hold out prospect of closer partnership, working together on many things. And that is our leverage. Our leverage is that we can be better partners for a more democratic Ukraine than we can for a less democratic Ukraine.”

Recently Orest Deychakiwsky, Policy Advisor for Belarus, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine at the Helsinki Commission opined that the pluralism of Ukrainian society would enable to avoid imposing a completely authoritarian regime in Ukraine, like those in Russia or Belarus. Is the US ready to increase assistance for the development of civic society in Ukraine like it was in the late 1990s?

“The Secretary of State has spoken very frequently about how important it is for us to support civil society and political pluralism, and that’s what we’re doing in Ukraine through different grants and programs. I don’t know whether it will go up or down next year exactly, because we’re looking at our budgets right now in Washington. It is our policy to support civil society and diversity of opinions, citizen groups, and to use our resources to support strengthening the political institutions and political processes. So if there is a real need for assistance on revising the electoral law, we will make experts available for that; if there is a need for different kinds of grants to different kinds of groups to be watchdogs of the government or to be doing specific educational work or other types of things, we will try to support that.”

During your visit to Brussels you said that the US can help Ukraine reform the election legislation. Is there any progress in this respect?

“Consultations are underway among Ukrainians political forces about changes to the electoral law, and we are prepared to assist with technical help and information about options and choices, if it appears to be a genuine consensus-oriented process of discussion. We’re looking at whether it is in fact a consensus-oriented process, then we may provide with more specific assistance.”

There is an opinion that if Ukrainian democracy succeeds, it will be a good example for Russia. In your opinion, will the EU and the US make everything possible for this to come true?

“I do think that success in building democracy in Ukraine will be a clear model for Russia and other neighbors. Ukraine is right between the democratic world and the authoritarian world, and I think it has the potential to be a very powerful example for some of its neighbors.

“Again, the important decisions and actions are taken by Ukrainians, not by Western Europeans or Americans. Whether democracy succeeds in Ukraine will not ultimately depend on outsiders, but on Ukrainians. ”