How to “nationalize” foreign policy?

We met Hanna Hopko for an interview just a few hours after the newly elected US President Donald Trump delivered his address to the US Congress, in which he announced his vision for the country. It became the starting point of our conversation.

“IT IS HIGHLY IMPORTANT FOR POROSHENKO TO MEET TRUMP BEFORE THE HEAD OF THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION MEETS PUTIN”

What are the main messages which you would like to highlight? What should we expect from the US, particularly in its foreign policy regarding Ukraine?

“Trump’s support for NATO is an important signal for the EU member nations and Ukraine, though he reiterated that the Alliance partners had to meet their obligations regarding funding for this structure.

“Creating jobs in the US through public infrastructure projects sends a strong signal to the Americans themselves. The energy component is important here, because should the States start exporting more energy, it will be a major blow to Russia. That is, in addition to sanctions, it could be hit by a fall in energy prices, which can adversely affect the Russian budget revenues.

“It is good to see Trump trying to enlist the support of the Congress, although this is a difficult process for him.”

By the way, the Democratic Party figure Steven Beshear criticized Trump’s speech for ignoring the Russian threat.

“I think we need to assess Trump on his concrete steps. The newly elected US president’s team is just taking shape. For example, there is still no official who would be responsible for Ukraine and our neighborhood. All executive positions on the level of assistant secretaries and heads of departments are now in the process of being filled. This process can take another month or two, or even more.

Photo by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day

“You also need to remember that in 150 days, Trump and his team have to submit to the Congress their National Security Strategy, to be followed by the Military Doctrine by January 2018. It will become clear then what the new US foreign policy will look like and what direction will be chosen for interaction with Russia.”

Still, we have already seen a certain transformation of Trump’s rhetoric toward Russia. What does it mean?

“US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley sent a clear signal with her statement during an emergency meeting of the Security Council, held in connection with the situation in Avdiivka. The ambassador clearly said that the sanctions regarding Crimea would be maintained until the peninsula is returned to Ukraine. As clarified later by the American president’s spokesman, this is Trump’s stance as well. We know that there were two phone calls between the president of Ukraine and Trump, followed by Poroshenko’s meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence and a phone call with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Now, it is highly important for Poroshenko to meet Trump before the head of the US administration meets Putin. It all depends on how well we are able to use all communication channels in order to organize such a meeting.”

“MANY MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL CLASS TRAVEL TO THE U.S. JUST TO BECOME FAMILIAR FACES THERE”

Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin already made a trip to the US which focused on this issue. What are the results of it?

“We have already received the first signals from the US administration showing that they are willing to discuss the problems of Crimea and the Donbas with Ukraine. It is very important therefore that we coordinate our actions within this country. We need to gather the key people involved in foreign policy, that is, representatives of the Verkhovna Rada, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), National Security and Defense Council, Presidential Administration, and summon Ambassador of Ukraine to the US Valerii Chalyi as well. Ukraine’s relations with partners such as the US need a measured, coordinated, statesmanlike approach. I have not noticed such understanding emerging so far, unfortunately...

“For example, a Ukrainian delegation consisting of the Petro Poroshenko Bloc (PPB) MPs Artur Herasymov, Iryna Friz, and Serhii Berezenko will soon travel to the US.

“For what purpose will they go there? For example, what international experience or reputation does Berezenko have that can help improve our relations with America? The question is: do they represent the interests of Ukraine or those of the PPB faction?”

Overall, why do we have such a large number of Ukrainian delegations visiting the US? Do such visits make any sense?

“Many members of the political class travel to that country just to become familiar faces here. It is a vanity and humiliation fair. This indicates that we lack a coordinated, jointly developed foreign policy strategy for Ukraine. That is why this massive political tourism exists. American legislators are tired of the fact that they may well get two different delegations from Ukraine in a day: one saying that they support holding early elections, and another asserting that reforms are going forward and they need the continued support of the US. Why have Poland, Romania, Bulgaria joined NATO? Because in domestic and foreign policy alike, their elites pursued shared objectives, advocated public interests, and spoke with one voice.”

By the way, President Poroshenko announced his intention to hold a NATO accession referendum in Ukraine. In your opinion, when and whether can it happen?

“When you plan some action, you always have to think about its objective. Our objective is attaining the ability to protect ourselves, as well as creation of a secure European space. Ukraine is a powerful contributor to regional and European security today. It is so because the Ukrainian army, which has been defending us daily for three years, has obtained a unique experience in counteracting ‘hybrid warfare.’ Partnership between Ukraine and NATO is a very important component of strengthening European security as well as our defense capabilities.

Photo by Ruslan KANIUKA, The Day

“However, there are important practical problems to be addressed today, and the success of Ukrainian foreign policy depends on them. For example, we have not had ambassador at the NATO headquarters for almost two years, although the candidate has finally been identified. There is ‘homework’ to be done, that is, criteria which we have to meet, and they go beyond security or defense. Doing such ‘homework’ will benefit Ukraine first and foremost. Only then can we talk about a referendum (by the way, it is necessary to adopt a new law on the referendum first, because the current law was inherited from Yanukovych and is totally unusable) and ponder what good will it do, and whether a referendum will help us to achieve the goal.”

“UKRAINIAN DIPLOMACY NEEDS REFORM, SOCIAL LIFTS, PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, AND FUNDING”

Den/The Day’s editor-in-chief Ivshyna has stressed, especially after the recent failure of our US policy, that we need to “nationalize our foreign policy.” Still, how did it happen that the current government miscalculated by betting on the losing US presidential candidate? People had the impression that foreign policy in this case was made not by the MFA, but rather by the author of the call for “painful compromises,” published by WSJ. Even the US media wrote that the Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk’s foundation was a donor of the Clinton Foundation.

“Hillary Clinton’s defeat really came as a surprise to many, but diplomacy and foreign policy are fields where you have to take into account even the most improbable scenarios. Our mistake was a learning experience, even if a bitter one. Here the main question is, have the Presidential Administration and the MFA learned from it? Was anyone held responsible for such grave diplomatic miscalculations?

“How did we begin a new chapter in our relations with the States? In this regard, it is noticeable that Canada started a new relationship with the US by strengthening the foreign ministry, including by appointing Chrystia Freeland to lead it. Many US figures have been telling us that we have to turn the page and start with bringing a new quality to this work by strengthening the Ukrainian embassy. For a sound foreign policy, it is critical not to be guided by the principle of loyalty to the leader, but rather by the professionalism and ability to respond to new challenges.”

How do you see the state of Ukrainian diplomacy today? Sometimes we hear that we had better diplomats in the early 1990s. Did we really have degradation setting in later? Where does the reform of the diplomatic service stand now?

“Ukrainian diplomacy needs reform, social lifts, professional training, and funding. However, we need the political will to get there, since, for example, we have gone a year and a half without a first deputy foreign minister. One deputy minister (Serhii Kyslytsia) covers the international organizations, while another (Olena Zerkal) deals with European integration, legal and energy issues. The minister himself has a tight schedule. So when we need an MFA top official to come to a meeting of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs and report on the foreign policy priorities for 2017, they have no one available. We have brought the matter to the attention of Prime Minister Volodymyr Hroisman, but it is still there. The MFA should not be a branch office of the Presidential Administration, the minister should have a principled position and be open with his employees. We have some absolutely professional diplomats and need them to engage in teamwork.”

“MOST REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT AND THE OPPOSITION DO NOT THINK LONG-TERM”

One of the main problems is the government’s failure to fill a number of Ukrainian ambassador positions abroad. You have raised this issue repeatedly and sent appropriate letters to the president and the foreign minister. What is the real reason for it? Is it personnel shortage or “special personnel policy”?

“It is both. But most damagingly, the Ukrainian foreign policy has suffered from undue secretiveness for the past three years. However, parliamentary diplomacy should strengthen our foreign policy. So until we have teamwork, it will be very difficult to defend our national interests, especially since we have to counter the powerful Russian propaganda, money, and lobbying. This applies to all areas of foreign policy.

“By the way, why do various proposals to address the issue of the occupied territories arise, coming from people like Pinchuk, Vasyl Filipchuk, Andrii Artemenko et al.? Because there is no clear strategy coming from the government itself. Even if we say that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements, although Russia is not complying with them anyway, we still have to offer a clear plan that would include political, social, humanitarian, and other aspects. But the problem is that most representatives of the current government and the opposition do not think long-term, limiting their proposals to their short terms in office.

“As you know, it is hard to develop foreign policy without effective domestic policies. PR alone, not supported by concrete steps, achieves nothing. For example, let us look into the so-called blockade of the Donbas. Has there been at least one attempt – again, open rather than covert – to get the president, prime minister, speaker of the Rada, and heads of the factions at the same table and find out where are the interests of oligarchs who defend their corrupt schemes, and where are the interests of the nation? Next, what can we get from recognition of the occupied territories as such and assigning full responsibility for them to Russia? Will it strengthen our international position, will it get us lethal weapons...? Such a frank conversation is absent. Even now, when the cabinet presented a plan for the reintegration of the Donbas, was there any preliminary discussion of that strategy held in the parliament? No. In fact, many of the key decisions for the country, which would make institutional reforms irreversible, are now being stalled.

“This creates the ground for disillusionment among our public and gives pro-Russian forces a chance for revenge. For example, the Accounting Chamber vacancies are being left unfilled, and here not only the president is to blame, but also all the factions. A similar issue has plagued the Central Election Commission. Electoral legislation reform is making no progress, while the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine cannot engage in wiretapping on its own even with court orders. There are many such issues.” 

Do you know the answer to the question why it is not being done?

“Because people are guided by personal or group interests rather than national ones. One must have the courage to take responsibility for the state and the people, to go against the populist mainstream, to stop thinking about the opinion polls or career.”

“THE FORMATS CAN BE CHANGED, BUT WE NEED TO SEARCH, WITH THE WEST’S ASSISTANCE, FOR NEW MECHANISMS OF PUTTING PRESSURE ON RUSSIA”

The authorities keep repeating that the only way to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine is finding a political and diplomatic solution based on the Minsk Agreements. But from all appearances, this format is exhausted. So, can we actually implement them, or is it necessary to seek a new format, given the recent statements of the foreign ministers of the UK, Poland, and Germany, who visited Kyiv?

“We clearly understand that there is no confidence in the Normandy format, because the Kremlin is not living up to its obligations. The formats can be changed, but we need to search, with the West’s assistance, for new mechanisms of putting pressure on Russia which would force it to meet its obligations. Because so far, we have seen it, on the contrary, aggravating the situation, including by recognizing passports of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics’ and expropriating businesses there. Also, Putin is now biding his time until the presidential election takes place in France and until Trump clearly defines his foreign policy.., perhaps in the hope that it will be possible to strike a global bargain, in view of the threat posed by the ISIS, the situation in Syria, and other factors.

“But Ukraine itself should have a plan A, plan B, plan C, i.e., we need to have various scenarios covered, and do not expect that our partners will negotiate for us. In addition to the Donbas negotiating platform, we need a negotiating platform on Crimea. We must build a new relationship with the US, to work effectively with the UK, Canada, Poland, Nordic countries, and Japan. All countries can be involved in different ways in negotiations to restore the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine.”

“IF THE PRESIDENT ATTENDS PINCHUK’S YES IN SEPTEMBER THIS YEAR, IT WILL BE A SHAME”

When the oligarch Pinchuk’s article appeared in the American publication WSJ, you openly criticized him and called for a boycott of future events held by this “businessman and philanthropist,” as he calls himself. But then we saw that some figures still attended the Davos lunch (the president, as we know, went to Davos, but did not go to the lunch). What does it mean?

“Yes, the president did not attend Pinchuk’s lunch, but when the latter organized a meeting with Bill Gates in Davos, Poroshenko went to that meeting. The question is: does the administration really lack contacts to arrange a meeting with Bill Gates without Pinchuk? The problem is over all these years, the government of Ukraine has failed to create a platform that would be similar to Pinchuk’s so-called Yalta Forum. This field has been completely surrendered to the oligarchs who are using such events to whitewash their image and try to spread their influence. They have their representatives in Parliament, whose careers they have built, in particular through the Zavtra.UA program. Does the government really need Pinchuk to organize such a platform as the YES? If the president attends Pinchuk’s YES in September this year, it will be a shame. We need to break the links between the oligarchs and the so-called elites who together position themselves as representatives of the state, while really caring only about their own interests and fortunes. Moreover, our law-enforcement agencies should respond to such things as Pinchuk’s call for the so-called painful compromises, especially when his proposals get support from the Russian propaganda, which mentioned the oligarch as a future presidential candidate.”

Significantly, immediately after Davos, Pinchuk organized a similar “Ukrainian lunch” in Munich just as the international security conference was going on there, and it had even more people attending than the Davos event. What does it mean, after all?

“Anyway, these events had fewer attendees than it usually happened before, both at the Ukrainian lunch in Davos and at the YES. This marks a definite positive trend. The arguments of those who go there ostensibly in order to present public opinion are just not acceptable. Firstly, you legitimize Pinchuk’s events by your presence, and secondly, there are other platforms available to present your position. Even if they are not, you still need to find ways and do everything to have such platforms appearing in Ukraine.”

“WE NEED TO PRESERVE OUR STATEHOOD, AND AN ALTERNATIVE WILL SURELY APPEAR”

How do you think, what impact can extradition of the oligarch Dmytro Firtash from Austria to the US and the court proceedings to that end have on Ukrainian politics, including our foreign relations?

“I think that this story has to become a means of purging the country from undue influence of oligarchs, especially those with energy assets. I think so because top leaders of the state have links to these so-called businesses, and the oligarchs themselves use big money obtained in that industry to influence the media environment, economy, and politics of the nation. It is important to minimize the oligarchs’ influence on decision-making by establishing clear and transparent rules which should primarily concern the legislation. Otherwise, the problem will remain a threat to national security.

“The Firtash story itself has to shed light on the links of Ukrainian politicians, revealing conditions under which they took money from the oligarchs. On the other hand, it is the West sending a signal to our oligarchs that the rules finally have to change, or investment will not come to Ukraine.

“We are seeing, for example, what is happening to the Yuzivska gas field, which was effectively stolen through a murky tender and transferred to some unknown company with just several thousand dollars in the account. Then, due to the scandal made by some MPs, this decision was blocked, and the legal battle began which is still going on.”

“Because of this, it has been a shame to see the Prosecutor General’s Office screwing up over the past three years their investigations into cases such as those of Mykola Zlochevskyi and Yurii Ivaniushchenko, failing to provide evidence to Western partners, and effectively ensuring that the sanctions imposed on them are lifted.

“In general, we have to understand that all revolutions we had since independence (the Revolution on Granite of 1990, the Orange one of 2004, and the Revolution of Dignity of 2013-14) were exploited by those who then wasted an opportunity to build a strong country through their illegal deals, corruption, clannishness, interdependence with the Russian elite and our oligarchs. But I really believe that Bohdan Hawrylyshyn was right when he said that in three to five years, we would see completely different young people appearing, who will have nothing to blackmail them with, will not do compromises with conscience and will be true professionals and patriots. We need to survive this transitional period and prevent both internal and external enemies from destroying the country (e.g., famous Putin adviser Sergei Karaganov writes that Russia needs to deal with a friendly neutral Ukraine or several Ukraines if Kyiv fails to keep control of the country in its present territorial borders, and the only way of survival for Ukraine is by becoming a bridge and buffer nation). We need to preserve our statehood, and an alternative will surely appear.”

What alternative do you mean – the one which came to politics after the Euromaidan and whose members have for the most part joined old political projects, or a new one, the next wave of young politicians?

“Indeed, many people got into politics after the Euromaidan, but very few of them remained faithful to the ideals of the protest. But even this small group of people is being hampered in its efforts. However, the so-called change makers (state builders) can put obstacles in the way of those wanting to preserve old practices and push the authorities into making important decisions such as the Law ‘On the Gas Market,’ but there are no real mechanisms able to influence the pace of reforms. Moreover, we must not forget that the media, which are mainly oligarch-owned, are working to show that all ‘new faces’ are actually the same sort of people.

“On the other hand, we do have a lot of young people who are not yet in politics and we can pin our hopes on them. Our committee alone has had about 70 interns in recent years who exhibit an entirely different level of training and values. I know that Den makes a lot of effort in this field, working with students at the Summer School of Journalism or through Den’s Library educational project. Therefore, I believe that such individual intellectual platforms will eventually have a cumulative effect. It is important also for these new people to have no illusions or sky-high ambitions, they must be willing to work selflessly and build a strong country. I thank Den/The Day as an intellectual platform for all its initiatives, especially for the English-language version, which helps the world to discover more about Ukraine!”