The principal question Ukraine faces at the turn of the century is whether it is able to draw itself out of the backwater of global development and become a competitive world-level player. Globalization greatly boosts the role of multinational entities or actors (MNCs and international institutions and organizations in which the U.S. plays the leading part) in the life of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine. Moreover, many of them influence the world situation even more than most modern states, which seem to be “dissolving” in the new international structures. Concurrently, globalization creates new forms of political settlement and division and a qualitatively new condition of the world when the post-Soviet countries, including Ukraine, are steadily more subjected to the pressure of worldwide integration, both economic and political. In this context, President Bill Clinton’s visit to Ukraine can be regarded as a suitable occasion to try again to assess the position of this country in the processes of globalization. According to Volodymyr POLOKHALO , a well-known Ukrainian political scientist, Ukraine has not yet formed a clear idea of these processes, for very often the assessments of the effect globalization has on Ukraine are laden with the elements of either demonization or myth-creation.
“Globalization should be regarded as an imperative, a demand of time. It may be interpreted as a dwindling (or even vanishing) opportunity for a state to develop in a special, ‘third,’ way, etc., i.e., to veer from world integration processes and isolate itself from the proliferation of global practices, values and technologies. In other words, globalization is the development of the economic and political dependence of countries and regions to such an extent when we can already speak about the creation of a single legal field and supra-national bodies of economic and political management. And this means that closeness and reliance on one’s own potential are impossible in principle.
“As for economic globalization, it is more or less clear: economic integration has become an objective tendency — transnational flows of capital, services and human resources, as well as technological integration, are on a sharp rise; an information-and-communication revolution, associated, above all, with the Internet, is unfolding. From this angle, Ukraine does not even have a choice left. So it is important to take into account and seize the chances of globalization so as not to remain on the fringe of worldwide processes. In any case, Ukraine badly needs a national strategy to adapt to these processes. We have to admit there is no strategy like this now.”
“One often notes the advantages of globalization. According to some analysts, globalization can offer some effective all-purpose means for overcoming traditional problems.”
“Naturally, globalization allows for overcoming old problems. But the latter engender new ones, for instance, new inequalities. So we cannot say it is free of side effects and gives equal opportunities to all participants. For example, it is obvious that the American and the Ukrainian worker are in unequal conditions from the very outset. Globalization gives a priori advantage to powerful states, leaving the weak ones in fact doomed to playing the role of underdogs.”
“Many ideologists of globalization generally proceed from the assumption that this process standardizes the world community and, in the long run, levels off all differences. This effectively precludes a sovereign ‘territorial’ state from making an independent decision about its national strategy of development. On the other hand, the advocates of globalization in Ukraine picture it as an alternative to national seclusion (Belarus).”
“One should not demonize globalization, nor should one create the myth that it is a panacea for all troubles. The myth says that globalization is able to solve all problems in Ukraine. Meanwhile, third-world and post-Soviet countries, Ukraine included, are still backward. For instance, Viktor Yushchenko says today that as soon as Ukraine joins the World Trade Organization, everything will rapidly change for the better in this country. But the WTO will never accept Ukraine on the same conditions as other states. We can see this even today in the problems connected with Ukrainian aircraft sales.
“There is another major problem. The ideologists of globalization raise the question of global management. This in fact means that individual persons and states are not self- sufficient in these conditions. So we witness the origin of a kind of globalist ideology, with the U.S. holding a special place in it. The United States is trying to play the role of messiah and impose its own ‘rules of the game’ on the whole world. This is happening without due account taken on national peculiarities, capabilities, potential, and simple ignorance toward the preparedness of societies for democratization. This project is comparable, in a way, to the Leninist project of worldwide revolution, but in this case we deal with a world democratic revolution.”
“However, it perhaps became clear after the global economic crisis that one must speak with utmost caution about universal recipes of economic development.”
“Jeffrey Sachs and other IMF and World Bank ideologists once suggested Ukraine follow an exclusively liberal way of development. This way proved successful enough, say, in Poland but ended as a fiasco in Russia and Ukraine. Incidentally, the Czech Republic only partially used recommendations by ideologists of an open society, and Vaclav Havel had rather serious disputes with George Soros. One more thing: this doctrine aims to smooth over national, religious and cultural differences and even lays claim to managing these processes. It can be compared in this respect with totalitarian utopias. Mr. Soros’ model of an ‘open’ society is a quaint philosophical design to build a ‘happy world’ for all. This utopia pursues such a noble purpose as curing the countries of Eastern Europe of the malady of totalitarianism. The question of whether Ukrainians are prepared to undergo a ‘treatment course’ by Mr. Soros’ prescription still remains open. There are different models of ‘democratic globalization,’ but almost all of them suggest global management. For example, the concept of ‘democratic expansion,’ as a manifestation of ‘democratic globalization’ (proclaimed in 1993 by the U.S. president’s national security advisor Anthony Lake), lays the groundwork for today’s U.S.- Ukrainian relationship. It can be briefly summarized as ‘democratic expansion,’ i.e., forced export and embedding in the political process of a state model acceptable for the U.S.
“But even in principle, there can be no global management capable of solving all problems. Mr. Soros plans to draw up an all-purpose project for all: a world without any barriers to the flow of information, people, and capitals. This is an open, not civil, society — there is a great difference between these two concepts. But the West itself is not fully prepared to do so: it introduces visas and other restrictions. So the integration process is one-sided to a considerable extent.”
“Do you think President Clinton can be expected to try to prove to the Americans in the run- up to the elections that the concept of ‘democratic expansion’ was implemented successfully in Ukraine?”
“Yes, surely. Mr. Clinton’s visit to Ukraine is an attempt to show the U.S. electorate and the outside world the effectiveness of this concept, as if to say: look, we have not only ruined the Soviet Union but also achieved great successes in transforming the new independent states. So our financial aid was not in vain.
“In general, Mr. Clinton did not pay a visit to Ukraine: he had to prove before elections that the money they pumped into Russia and Ukraine did not go down the drain. So one could be sure in advance that Mr. Clinton would never get down to criticizing Ukraine. He must bring a kind of achievement back to the U.S. For instance, Ukraine’s assurance to shut down the Chornobyl nuclear power plant by a certain date. Today, George Bush Jr. is outdoing Al Gore by several points, while the Republicans are constantly criticizing the Democrats for their Eastern policies and for having spent too much money to prop up CIS regimes.”
“It hence follows that the U.S. has been spending funds to feed the myth about its successful activities in Ukraine?”
“The Americans were firmly convinced at the early stage that each country was sure to come to democracy. Zbigniew Brzezinski even once drew up special schemes, where this way was thoroughly calculated. All countries were divided into groups depending on when and how they must approach this democracy. They did not take into account then that there could be in principle no plans of building a society or a democracy because history does not develop linearly. This is an example of neo-totalitarian thinking being foisted on other countries. And only strong states can challenge this.
“Ukraine proved unprepared not only to counter this approach in some way but even to play to the rules imposed by the leading world players — above all, on the level of the old nomenklatura elite. The question is still open: are the Ukrainian ruling groupings really, not just in words, prepared for full- blooded participation, as full- fledged actors, in globalization? Are they able to act effectively in a transnational environment on the basis of the values of the latter? Are the Ukrainian elite interested in introducing democratic institutions? In other words, are they prepared to accept the challenge of ‘democratic globalization?’ Unfortunately, there are practically no grounds for a positive answer to these questions.”
“Can we say that the West, striving to ‘democratize’ us and sowing the seeds of abstract universal rules of the game in Ukrainian soil, in fact created and implemented the conditions for Ukraine not to become a full- fledged participant in the process of globalization?”
“Speaking objectively, it is just so. The West immobilized the situation in Ukraine without initiating any deep institutional changes. It was content with the ostensible good-bye to communism. It practically put aside the human rights problem in Ukraine as soon as 1991. This can be partly explained by the West’s strategic interests and partly by its illusions. Today, the West has no illusions about Ukraine. It became clear to the Americans somewhere in the mid-90s that Ukraine did not fit in with Mr. Lake’s concept of ‘democratic expansion’ and stayed out of the zone of democratic states.
“Therefore, decisions about Ukraine are being made in the West by big-time players, while our leaders, for instance, Mr. Yushchenko, only announce and relay them. This was once being performed by Viktor Pynzenyk, who did very much for Ukraine — very much bad, I mean, for he and J. Sachs tried thoughtlessly to realize the latter’s theoretical schemes in Ukraine and thus gave the oligarchs a chance to develop.”
“How would you assess the state of affairs today?”
“At the moment, Ukraine faces three alternatives: 1) to cooperate with democratic countries, sharing Western liberal values, and join ‘democratic globalization;’ 2) to simulate this kind of cooperation, continuing to go toward the establishment of a quasi-democratic oligarchic regime; and 3) to provoke a confrontation with the West, creating an enemy image out of the latter (as is now being practiced in Russia). Ukraine should now realistically assess its potential and try to take a deserving place in the processes of globalization, without losing its national sovereignty.”
