Were Chornobyl to be closed in the United States, it would become the event of the year, perhaps decade. But then, America is America. The Americans have always been able to present their attainments [with much fanfare], just as they have always realized the importance of such presentation. In this, as in many other fields, Ukraine still lags. It is hard for us to promote our own achievements, real as well as imagined, on the European, let alone world scale. We do not have the necessary capabilities, and the rest of the civilized world treats us differently.
Kyiv is making its second truly important step in its short independent history, conforming to European, perhaps world priorities over than its own, literally turning upside down the generally accepted pattern of international relations, showing an example of foreign political conduct that can become common practice only sometime in the distant future.
The first such step was Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament, because others needed it more than we did, and Ukraine did it to show its respect for those others. And now the closure of Chornobyl, something everybody needs, including Ukraine; while the latter needs it about as much as everyone else, it will wind up the loser, and all those others will benefit from it.
Without exaggeration, both events are epochal for Ukraine and the rest of Europe, although most Europeans regard what is happening in Ukraine with a significant degree of skepticism and bias, perhaps expecting us to pull off a nasty trick.
Discarding nuclear weapons and closing down Chornobyl are not totally indisputable from the standpoint of Ukrainian national interests. Each can provoke a heated discussion of its expediency. Everything points to the strong likelihood of such discussions in the future.
Chornobyl is our tremendous problem, our tragedy, which we inherited and which we, much to our regret and shame, will leave to posterity. The consequences of the 1986 nuclear disaster are still to be fully realized. At this stage we have no way to assess its total impact on our life in space and time — and I mean not only life in Ukraine, of course. For the time being, we have to make do with tentative estimates and guesses, because there are things and factors we fail to register and monitor.
After 1986, Chornobyl became a symbol of ecological disaster with unpredictable consequences. After December 15, 2000, this symbol will have an altogether different meaning. Closed on President Kuchma’s initiative, the Chornobyl NPP will embody the victory of reason over sheer economic calculation, the triumph of tomorrow in its traditional confrontation with the present day.
Interestingly, we are in a way embarrassed by our own decision to rid Ukraine of nuclear armaments. Likewise, we appear to keep the closure of Chornobyl low key: no festivities or media people having a field day. The whole affair appears routine. Meanwhile, December 14—15 marked an event rating not only nationwide, but also worldwide live media coverage, because this event is truly unique.
Ukraine does not have many official holidays and Chornobyl shutdown could be one of them. Why do anyone of us not bother to raise the issue? What is there to stop us? Modesty? Or the inability to think independently, without waiting for recommendations from overseas?
The president of the country closing down Chornobyl rates at least a Nobel Peace Prize. How will we acknowledge our president’s efforts? Will we just make him shoulder the responsibility for possible consequences of this decision now that it has been carried out?
The aftermath of stopping Power Unit Three and closing down the entire nuclear facility is still actively debated. Experts and politicians do not seem to agree on any aspect of the problem. This is easily explained. Who can guarantee that all the computations relating to Power Unit Four and its internal processes are correct and will not require fundamental adjustments at some later time because of environmental changes?
In our current economic situation, most Ukrainians regard their country’s international prestige as an abstract notion. Indeed, who needs that prestige with so many living in misery? Perhaps it is best to concentrate on our own domestic economic, social, and political problems, rather than seek international kudos, especially considering that this hunt requires money, which in any case we perpetually lack.
The interrelationship between the domestic situation and international image is among our most important and controversial issues.
There is a notion that international pres tige is achieved by solving domestic problems. In other words, a given country should first get on its feet, stabilize the domestic situation and at least bring it close to that in other countries, and only then proceed to win those countries’ trust and recognition as their equal, thus attaining what is generally known as international prestige.
Another concept somewhat shifts the emphasis in the previous formula (which, by and large, encounters no objections). Indeed, it is difficult to make others respect you if you do not respect yourself. Yet respect and self-respect are not completely identical notions; they have different aspects. A country can get on its feet both materially and spiritually. Even without a living standard quite natural for other countries, this country can be on equal terms with the others in terms of culture. This offers an opportunity to start an equal dialogue with other countries and peoples to assert its place in the world and to win international prestige not after but during the process of solving its domestic material problems.
The international prestige of a given country belongs to sophisticated categories and is filled with a specific content by that country’s own efforts, as well as spontaneously, regardless of people’s will and intent.
In this sense, Ukraine can be considered lucky and unlucky. After becoming an independent state in 1991, Ukraine was received by the international community with enough friendliness and understanding. It is safe to assume that official Kyiv, from the outset of its new independent status, received a sizable political advance payment, being accepted a priori as the capital of a country prepared to build its life based on laws understandable to the rest of the world, relying on generally recognized values. All this could be considered a great stroke of luck, especially remembering what has happened to certain other postcommunist countries, branded as undemocratic and retaining this ignominious status.
An event of such scope as the closure of Chornobyl can have a strong impact on the situation, considerably improving Ukraine’s international image. Simply by stopping the Chornobyl reactor, Ukraine’s political leadership might well achieve something its diplomatic service would hope to achieve after a decade of hard systematic work; likewise, Kyiv Dynamo would have to turn in several winning soccer seasons.
History knows many cases when nations united after scoring great victories and when experiencing most painful ordeals. For the Ukrainian people, Chornobyl became its greatest tragedy turning a prosperous country into ecological ruin with an ineffaceable stigma in the eyes of other states and peoples. The closure of Chornobyl could become that very catharsis, spiritual cleansing, and enlightenment, such that the disaster will trigger off a new life touching on but without Chornobyl.
US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual, addressing Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, pointed out that by closing Chornobyl Ukraine was saying farewell to its Soviet past, stepping into the new millennium as a cleansed and rejuvenated country. Even if not sufficiently clearly formulated, the concept remains very much to the point and far-reaching. We are really shedding the last of our old skin, getting truly rejuvenated, so much so that we are as yet unable to identify our new self, all things considered. And we are also showing others a good example. We are not only stepping into the third millennium in a new way, but are also blazing the trail for the rest of mankind, by our example urging all those others to rid themselves of all that which seemed so badly needed yesterday and is not likely to be of any use tomorrow.
To be heard and understood by Europe and the rest of the world, we must form certain ideas for ourselves — and for others, of course — and develop mechanisms to convey these ideas to the world public, world political elite. Such mechanisms already exist and have been tested in principle. They are used by all those genuinely concerned with notions such as the international image and international prestige of their country.
There are plenty of examples, including the latest: Russia and its recent media campaign to make up for the markedly negative image of its new regime, following the death of Russia’s Kursk nuclear submarine. For several weeks major Russian television outlets and print media covered salvage operations in the Barents Sea, highlighting heartrending episodes with deep sea divers struggling to get inside the submarine. The venture was doomed from the outset, an effort to achieve something making little sense at the beginning, then completely senseless, in the end to drown an almost uncomprehending audience in a torrent of joyous pride in Russia after the divers’ triumphant return. A devastating fiasco turned into a victory and glory, with a touch of spy novel suspense when trying to answer the question what actually happened to the Kursk and why.
In the case of Chornobyl, Ukraine is in a more advantageous position compared to Russia and its Kursk tragedy. The reactor blew up at Chornobyl, but in a different country and under a different sociopolitical system. In other words, no frills or editing were needed. All it took was to show the situation like it really was, placing the right emphasis and dispelling the doubts that arose for perfectly understandable reasons.
The closure of Chornobyl should be regarded as a major political and ecological event in the first place. Ukraine now stands every chance to turn the closing ceremony into a momentous international development, with much publicity and scoring high points. The socioeconomic, financial, and other aspects of the problem are not image-winning in the international context, and it is not worth concentrating on them now, because this would distract the attention of the interested parties from the essence of the event.
Victories are badly needed by any nation, at any stage of its historical progress, especially at sharp bends and in critical situations. Internal victories as well as those reaching far outside a given body politic.
Ukraine is nearing the end of its painful transition period, to proceed to assert itself in its new status, as an independent democratic state. In other words, now it needs spectacular victories with thundering international reverberation more than ever before. The number and caliber of such victories, and the way the international community responds to them will determine the place allocated Ukraine on the European and world stage.
Ukraine dominating Europe’s and the world’s virtual mass media reality is a myth. It does not tally with the actual visage of the new Ukraine, nor does it answer its national interests. Changing this myth calls for Herculean efforts by the Ukrainian political system (without distinguishing between the branches of government and vertical chain of command) and the entire Ukrainian people. Events such as the closure of Chornobyl can mark a real breakthrough in this sphere, so they must be used one hundred, nay, one hundred and twenty percent!
If they had to close down Chornobyl in America, 2010 would very likely see worldwide festivities commemorating the tenth anniversary of the event; words of praise addressed to the sage political leadership and the great American people would be heard everywhere, lauding them for their courage, readiness to suffer certain limitations and discomfort for the sake of making life on the planet safer and happier.
Will Ukraine live to hear such words of praise and understanding of what it cost this country to deserve such appreciation?
