Recently, very critical statements made by the former American ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pfeiffer about Ukrainian government appeared on the web. In particular, the senior analyst at the Brookings Institute said that the Ukrainian government could only expect a negative reaction from the US and Europe if Tymoshenko was convicted of murder. He also stated that “Yanukovych and his people overestimate Ukraine’s importance for the West,” and “Ukraine is getting close to becoming another Belarus instead of another Poland.” It is rather strange that all Ukrainian mass media published the former American ambassador’s statements without commentaries. Moreover, recently three American ambassadors admitted: “We just did not understand those huge economic challenges that Ukraine had to face during the transition from communism to free market economy.” The Day addressed the director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies Andrii YERMOLAIEV with a request to comment upon the statements and assessments made by the American ambassador, whether their general tonality was consistent and what explained their lack of information about the real situation and problems Ukraine had to go deal with.
“Let us imagine for a moment that Ukrainian politicians and former diplomats start to extensively and aggressively comment on events in American or European politics and voice such offers and commentaries which significantly influence the domestic policy of the discussed countries. I do not think that this is a healthy situation, it signals a certain degree of haughtiness of the American politics, a habit to influence internal processes using political authority that was built up during the past few decades. But I think that despite difficulties that we can see in political, legal, and judicial areas in Ukraine, this is our own business. It is hard for me to comment on the Tymoshenko case, since it involves events that happened a long time ago. And it is hard to talk about the prospect of the last court proceeding without being able to check the validity of both sides. But nevertheless, I consider this to be our sovereign business, especially in the legal area. And viewing it from the perspective of political suitability only is an atavism from the times of the Cold War.”
Pfeiffer accuses Ukrainian government of following the path of Belarus.
“When talking about the development of situation in Ukraine, we have to take into consideration not only evaluation of the government representatives’ activity, but also the situation that was formed in the very society during the last 20 years. I often reproach my colleagues (it usually happens at some public events and roundtables of countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and United States) for paying too much attention to the outward appearance of the case and symbolic compound, which is rather contradictory, and for not seeing the way Ukrainian society and its relations in economic and public spheres develop in the post-socialist tradition, and which problems have systematic nature. I used the phenomenon of Ukrainian ‘shadow’ as an example: in particular, I talked about phenomena of shadow economy and civil society.
“For instance, the complexity of the demographic situation, let alone the peculiarities of such ‘Ukrainian management systems’ as inclination to strong authoritative power, administrative style, which is often motivated by the management system, and to a corresponding type of behavior. During the constitutional transit, when discussions on the ways of formation of legal sense in Ukrainian society were going on, I noticed this phenomenon, a compound of legal awareness, but there was also such thing as ‘traditional’ law. That is, the regulatory relations that are formed independently of a legal norm, and also a phenomenon that requires a separate study, I say this as an analyst, a phenomenon of a so-called ‘status law.’ Some time after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a lot of analysis of the so-called ‘phone law.’ And this is evidence of the fact that unfortunately, a person’s social and managerial status still influences their ability to solve problems and influence processes in different situations just depending on their position and not their authority. And this is very often accepted in the society and in other areas. This phenomenon should be treated carefully, because it starts working as a new tradition, which often is in conflict with the new legal reality.
“Revolutionary methods do not work right away there, we just need to follow the path of consistent upbringing of modern legal awareness. And while implementing some new legal regulations, we need to take into consideration the structures the process of transformation of which is much more complex and evolutionary than a desire to start with a clean slate on Monday. Not only politicians and experts are engaged in these relations, but the whole society is, which continues living in the civil shadow I have already talked about.
Let us imagine for a moment that Ukrainian politicians and former diplomats start to extensively and aggressively comment on events in American or European politics and voice such offers and commentaries which significantly influence the domestic policy of the discussed countries. I do not think that this is a healthy situation, it signals a certain degree of haughtiness of the American politics, a habit to influence internal processes using political authority that was built up during the past few decades.
“If American political science once was proud of its achievements in the sphere of the so-called sovietology, now I can say that American and Western politicians in general have a poor knowledge of what has been going on in the post-Soviet countries during the past 20 years. It seems that they took a big step back here. I am not trying to justify our reality, I only say that you cannot be so unambiguously categorical while talking about the life of contemporary Ukraine. Even more, you cannot compare it to other countries while considering a very limited set of features. Ukraine is certainly not Russia, and it is not Belarus either. And the processes that we are observing in 2013 (including the extraordinary complexity of domestic political and economic situations) are another proof of that. But the process of European integration is still going on. We have great hopes for progress this year. Ukraine has been somewhat recognized as one of the moderators of the European dialog by having an opportunity to vote at the OSCE. And this is not a coincidence. This is the result of an evolution of Ukraine as a young European civilized state.”
What can you say about the opinion voiced by Pfeiffer and many other European politicians and experts that “Yanukovych and his government overestimate Ukraine’s importance for the West?”
“Ukraine is underestimated, and that is the main problem.”
Could you explain that statement?
“It is not a fabrication created by Ukrainian political or social experts, it is not a historical myth, this is a serious global discussion which was also joined by leading philosophers of the Islamic world and the Far East concerning what development philosophy will be in favor in the 21st and the following centuries. The Western consciousness, political traditions, and geopolitical views are reproached for incompetence and inability to overcome the global crisis we all are going through now. Firstly, we talked about economic reality, and now the discussion is about the deep geopolitical shifts and changes in geopolitical space. In this sense, the stand of the young national states which appeared on the map in the 20th century (and I think that Ukraine belongs to the upper echelon of such countries) has to deal with creating a new diverse world that cannot and will not live in the stereotypes of a divided world. These countries will live in the conditions of multipolarity and multilateralism. Sorting out countries on the map into categories of friends and enemies, the good and the bad is something that should be left in the past. And it is a pity that the opinion leaders and politicians who have authority among media and experts still hold on to these views. It is a challenge of the 21st century to learn how to think about development in terms of diversity and equality. We have to be able to face that challenge. I do not want to go back to the problem of Ukrainian transit now, since it is a separate huge discussion with plenty of aspects and details, including the self-critical ones. But nevertheless, the call for equality and discussion about a new development philosophy based on recognition and enhancement of stable diversity, including the diversity of social structures and such a new phenomenon as the civilizational mixed setup, which has not been recognized as a phenomenon for a long time, are the main issues.”
Some Ukrainian politicians are talking about the necessity to unite European and Eurasian Unions. Do you think this is possible, considering these unions are based on different values and principles?
“I would like to express a paradoxical opinion: the rapprochement process takes place regardless of what politicians and various political forces say. Given the prospects for the Great West (as it was in the 19th-20th century) and its crisis, as well as the formation of a new world, striving to control the resources whose development is oriented towards new integration formulas, I think that continental integration is a trend which can hardly be blocked by anyone.
“On the other hand, there is the question of how economic and political formations and amalgamations of today, with all their constitutions, ambitions, inner leadership, are capable of such a dialog. Even the European Union, which was considered a monolithic formation after Lisbon, is not enjoying its best times. Its self-reform cannot be ruled out, either. By the way, the same could be said of the Customs Union, which has already caused a lot of problem related to the evolution of the CIS members’ cooperation. For one, it forestalled the creation of the free trade area and created certain obstacles, thus making non-members look for other ways for cooperation with the Customs Union. This quest is sometimes painful (and very painful for Ukraine), for it is accompanied with the politicization of this issue through certain ultimatum-like proposals. However, I believe we will survive.”
