The Central State Archives of Civic Associations of Ukraine stores documents relating to latter-day history, and modern political parties and civic associations, as well as private archives of Ukrainian politicians and public figures. Its stocks were recently expanded by documents donated by the noted public figure and member of the Club of Rome Bohdan Hawrylyshyn, Ph.D. (honorary). Among other things, he donated his correspondence with various prominent individuals, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl, Baroness Williams of Crosby, Margaret Thatcher, Lord Howe, Romano Prodi, and Indira Gandhi; texts of lectures on various topics, which he gave in seventy countries; documents illustrating the activities of the Ukrainian Legal Foundation and International Renaissance Foundation; manuscripts of research papers; and a collection of publications about Ukraine that appeared in print abroad. “I have managed to see the world, I have visited all the continents and familiarized myself with the practice of economic, political, and social systems in a number of countries,” Bohdan Hawrylyshyn told a press conference, explaining his decision to donate the documents to the Central Archives. He added, “This experience could be useful for Ukraine, as it allows one to understand the circumstances in which a given political course or instrument can be effective or result in failure. In addition, I have communicated with a number of renowned personalities, who were all very different. This topic could also be of interest,” he said, citing the two successful German chancellors Helmut Kohl and Helmut Schmidt, as examples: Kohl, a gourmet and a good cook, with a good sense of humor, and Schmidt, a difficult person and a rigid taskmaster. Prof. Hawrylyshyn’s friends, the writers Dmytro Pavlychko, Ivan Drach, Yuri Shcherbak, and Ihor Yukhnovsky, were present that day to support him. Bohdan Hawrylyshyn was born and raised in Ternopil oblast. He finished high school in a refugee camp in Germany, completed a B.A. at the University of Toronto in Canada, and later an M.A. in management, and obtained a doctorate in economics in Switzerland. Since 1988 he has worked in Ukraine on a voluntary basis. Before 1998, he was Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the International Renaissance Foundation. He has traveled with Ukrainian governmental delegations to Canada and Switzerland and worked as a part-time consultant to the first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, and numerous parliamentary speakers and prime ministers of Ukraine. He is the recipient of Ukrainian, Canadian, and Italian government decorations.
The Day took the opportunity to pose several questions to Bohdan Hawrylyshyn.
You are a member of the Club of Rome. Its motto reads “Think globally, act locally.” How would you comment on this imperative with regard to Ukraine?
B.H: One of the first things I established in Ukraine was an Association of the Club of Rome. This is standard practice, as one hundred persons is the maximum membership for this club. Those who support this organization and share its concerns about mankind along the Club of Rome’s lines can set up national associations. There are about eighteen such associations in various countries. Somehow it failed to thrive in Ukraine, perhaps because there were too many academicians and too few energetic individuals capable of inspiring others to pursue the cause. Or maybe the association members realized they could do little to influence the processes taking place in this country. In other countries people can have a rather tangible impact on society, without being either a president or premier. In Ukraine, the situation is different. However, I can still remember that early on interesting reports were presented by members of our association, like Yuri Pakhmov, who stated that the collapse of socialist ideology, the whole system, was rooted in the Russian cultural tradition. All things considered, the association lacked a leader who was prepared to shoulder the burden. As for the motto, it means simply that the members of the national associations of the Club of Rome must think systematically (including with regard to the international process, politics, economics, ecology) and act at a national level.
Ukraine will be celebrating its thirteenth year of independence in about two months. What, in your opinion, are the main results of the past years-attainments, and miscalculations?
B.H.: The greatest achievement is the existence of the Ukrainian national state, although there are still very many uninformed people in the world who still don’t know about this country, that Ukraine is not Russia, that this polity does exist, that it operates a ramified diplomatic network. We may have our doubts about diplomats properly discharging their functions, but the very fact that the network exists is extremely important. Another important achievement is that Ukrainian is the official language and the language of school instruction, even though a minority of the population is actually using it.
Our culture in not in the best shape because of inadequate funding, not because it is banned. For example, the fine arts have developed quickly in Ukraine. All these are positive indices.
The negative aspect is that people who were dreaming about Ukrainian independence and sacrificing their lives for it thought only of independence, not power and money — i.e., politics and economy. And so they missed the opportunity to take power into their hands at the very beginning. And they did have that opportunity in 1990-91, when the so-called patriotic and democratic minority was advancing and the nomenklatura majority was retreating. However, that minority did not seem eager to take the helm. Even when they elected Leonid Kravchuk and he invited the Rukh people to join the government, they said they’d rather stay in opposition. Sad but true, the former apparatchiks came to power and took control of the greatest national assets.
Another regrettable fact is that Ukraine has done little to get closer to the European Union over the years. If it had become a member anytime earlier, no one would have considered the possibility of Ukraine vanishing as a body politic. Also, it would have made spectacular economic headway. A number of EU countries have combined political freedom, economic effectiveness, and social justice, as well as the understanding that one must live in harmony with nature, rather than just exploiting it. For us, these are living models showing us that we must move in that direction, instead of remaining in our present state of primitive capitalism.
Why do you think some of Ukraine’s former socialist neighbors are already EU members, while this country, after declaring its European choice, is ratifying documents connected to the Single Economic Space?
B.H.: Ukraine must determine its foreign political course. Remaining in a geopolitical vacuum is an unwise choice. In my opinion, we should be headed for the European Union, even though we hear that we will not be made welcome there. Unfortunately, this is true. No one wants us there in our current condition. Ukraine is an impoverished country and its membership will cost EU a great deal. Well-to-do countries pay into the Regional Development Fund, and the money is then allocated to candidate members and actual members of the European Union. This fund currently amounts to more than a hundred billion euros. In the next five years this money will be channeled into the new member countries. Such monetary aid would be more than welcome in Ukraine. In my opinion, however, our national identity could be a greater asset in competing with other countries for EU membership.
Regrettably, this won’t happen if we agree to act under the able guidance of our neighbor. God bestowed oil and gas deposits on our land, but we effectively squandered them away years ago. Russia can spend a long time doing nothing, living off what it has been granted by nature. Also, the mentality of ruling over others is so engrained by now that we cannot expect to be regarded as an equal member, if and when we form an alliance with Russia.
In other words, Europe does not want us, first of all because we are economically underdeveloped, and second, because they are not sure about our intentions. We have practiced that multivectored policy for too long. And being on the outside is no choice at all.
How do you feel about the presidential campaign that has de facto begun in Ukraine?
B.H.: I think that the past year and a half marked the worst period in Ukraine since 1989. We are witnesses to an utterly undefined political situation, including the constitutional amendment and presidential campaigns, and such processes as the Mukacheve election issue.
The positive aspect is that the presidential election will be a nationwide event. If kept democratic, the outcome will indicate considerable progress for Ukraine, regardless of the winner. It will be evidence that those wielding power in Ukraine have finally realized that there are boundaries that no one can transgress, as was the case in Donetsk and Mukacheve.
