Twenty-three vacancies

Some 20 new Ukrainian ambassadors may be appointed in November. So far Ukraine has received seven agrements [a government’s official approval of proposed envoys from a foreign government — Trans.] Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk announced on Nov. 4, “As of today we have agrements that have arrived for seven ambassadors. It is expected that this number will increase in the nearest future.” There are 23 ambassadorial vacancies to be filled, including Germany, US, UK, Russia, and other countries. Minister Tarasiuk said that the Ukrainian president will meet with the newly appointed ambassadors shortly and pointed out that the absence of Ukrainian ambassadors in a number of countries will not have a negative effect on voting in other countries during the parliamentary elections in Ukraine. “I don’t think the absence of duly appointed ambassadors will have an impact on the realization of Ukrainians’ rights abroad,” Tarasiuk added. Has this influenced Ukraine’s foreign policy in any way?

UKRAINIAN AMERICANS PROPOSE VITALY KLYCHKO AS AMBASSADOR

Yuriy SHCHERBAK, former Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine:

This is a failure of our foreign policy. To put it mildly, it is a disgrace that our state cannot find the right people to appoint to key ambassadorial posts. I want to remind you about what happened to our relations with France, when there was no Ukrainian ambassador in Paris for two years. We are still being reminded of this; that situation led to a significant worsening of relations. Right now we are roughly in the same situation with respect to key countries: the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and finally Russia. Of course, this must be regarded as a top priority, something the head of state rather than the foreign minister should be dealing with, because the president is personally responsible for Ukraine’s foreign policy (it’s one of his major functions, according to the Constitution of Ukraine). I believe that there are adequate people, who can worthily represent Ukraine. These may be career diplomats of the new generation. There are many talented individuals aged 30-40 at the foreign ministry. The so-called horizontal transfer could also be used — a method for transferring diplomats who have acquitted themselves well from less significant countries to more important ones. There is also the political appointment method, whereby former ministers of foreign affairs or finance, former prime ministers, former or current important political figures are offered important diplomatic posts. I am speaking in particular about Kostiantyn Hryshchenko, the former minister of foreign affairs, and Yevhen Marchuk, the former secretary of the Council of National Security and Defense. In my opinion, Valeriy Pustovoitenko could be appointed Ukrainian ambassador to Russia. However, I don’t want to focus on concrete personalities. The matter at issue is different. There must be a principled state approach, which is nowhere to be seen; there is none. This is unfortunate, because when a president comes to power in any country, he brings his team with him, even a team consisting of a thousand people, among whom are certainly ambassadors to important countries where the president wants to conduct an active policy. He should rely on the ambassador, trust him, and the ambassador should have direct access to the president in order to report on the situation and correct various events. Why have no appointments been made yet — is it because of red tape or the shortsightedness of the Ukrainian leadership? My guess is because of a disastrous lack of imagination. Let me tell you a funny story. Ukrainians in the US have suggested that we appoint Vitaly Klychko as Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. I told them that when Mike Tyson becomes president of the US, Klychko can then be the ambassador in that country. This is a joke, but also proof that unexpected appointments are in the offing. Not just faceless career bureaucrats should have the right to be appointed ambassadors. It also takes imagination and a clear notion of foreign policy. It’s a shame that people proclaim themselves as professionals but have no idea of foreign policy. The foreign minister must realize that none of our efforts, even Herculean ones, will make up for the lack of ambassadors. It must be understood that no leadership of any country will speak with second secretaries or counselors. The most crucial information is conveyed by ambassadors. They have the possibility to obtain information, meet with various political figures, and understand exactly what is happening in the host country.

OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS ARE SUFFERING

Yevhen KAMINSKY, Ph.D. (Political Science and International Relations):

Proceeding from the assumption that an ambassador and diplomacy in general mean primarily informing the highest state bodies of any changes taking place in the policies of a given country toward Ukraine, the absence of our ambassadors in such countries as the United States and Russia is certainly having a negative effect on the situation and the accuracy of the Ukrainian leadership’s actions. I will use the United States as an example. Here, owing precisely to the lack of a Ukrainian ambassador, the issues that were discussed during our president’s visit to the US in April were not systematized. In fact, proceeding from the assessment of the US vector of our foreign policy, to me the situation looks as if we are failing to comply with numerous commitments that were agreed upon. We lack a certain systematization of what we agreed upon at that time, what has not been implemented, and the US attitude to this. From what I am reading in American scholarly journals and the press I am picking up on a critical attitude to how we are implementing these agreements. But I see no response from Ukraine. In many respects this is caused by the absence of a Ukrainian ambassador. Another aspect is the US foreign policy strategy and our attempts to play along with it. In my opinion, we are witnessing this possible scenario: Ukraine is striving to be in the epicenter of the Americans’ struggle for global democracy and fight against international terrorism. Very often experts, political scientists, and experts on international relations say that this does not correspond to Ukraine’s national interests. Can we say now that our embassy in the US has convinced the president of Ukraine, prime minister, or the Verkhovna Rada that this is good for us or not good? That we should or shouldn’t support democracy in Belarus, how much all this corresponds to Ukraine’s national interests, or are we just playing along and losing? The lack of an ambassador in the United States is not allowing us to determine clearly whether we should be taking part in these processes. Last but not least, only an embassy and only an ambassador who resides permanently in a given state can take into account elements of the strategic interests of the host country, where he represents Ukrainian interests that are discussed in the corridors of power and during various meetings of diplomats and government officials. If all we have is what is published in the press, we won’t be able to make correct decisions, because the press often presents information in an emotionally elevated state. Only a real diplomat can see things that are not on the surface. Here again, I see that the absence of an ambassador cannot have a positive effect on our national interests. In other words, it is very important to have ambassadors in all the great states, especially the superpowers. Without them Ukraine’s national interests are suffering.