“President Viktor Yushchenko has arrived on an official visit to Ukraine.” This is a joke, of course, but it contains a grain of truth. My estimates show that our head of state has been on 28 visits abroad and has spent some time working outside Ukraine. Hence, the joke, not to mention a lot of criticism that has been directed against Yushchenko, who is accused of caring more about his image than finding solutions to domestic problems. Recently we learned that our president is planning 37 visits abroad next year, meaning that he will be visiting his foreign colleagues every ten days.
This is just the start of a whole list of astounding figures. Early last week we learned that the Cabinet of Ministers has announced that next year it will give the State Administration 21.5 million hryvnias for the president’s trips abroad. A memorandum appended to the 2006 draft budget reads that this is 36.1 percent higher than in 2005. As of July 1, 2005, central budget appropriations for the president’s 18 trips to 23 countries totaled 6.4 million hryvnias.
Much of the criticism targeting Yushchenko because of his Gorbachev-like behavior (while he travels abroad, the population is losing confidence in the head of state) is exaggerated. Visits abroad are extremely important and only a politician who is tagged with the unfortunate label of “Not to Travel” would pass up such opportunities. Perhaps, many people are simply unused to observing the trips of our current head of state, considering his predecessor’s international isolation. Leonid Kuchma visited Moscow and other post- Soviet capitals; now and then Ukrainian diplomats would succeed in arranging for visits to Western Europe, but those were exceptions from the rule.
Still, the main thing is quality, not quantity. The president’s supporters continue to claim that the results of his trips will be noticeable not today, not even tomorrow, since they have to do with long-term interests. Thus, when the president visited Japan, he reportedly succeeded in making investment arrangements worth a billion dollars. This means the creation of new jobs, additional revenues, improving social policy, and so on. However, implementing these plans takes time. Here’s another example. Our president has twice visited the United States; on both occasions the same issues were broached — Ukraine’s market economy status and the cancellation of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. So far these issues have not been resolved (perhaps because they are part of a package of extra-long-term interests).
But while Viktor Yushchenko attributes great importance to meeting his foreign colleagues, these same colleagues do not consider it necessary to reciprocate. Russian president Vladimir Putin is the only one of the G-7 leaders who has visited Ukraine. One is left hoping that the other ranking politicians must have had valid reasons. For example, the Japanese prime minister and the German chancellor may have been too busy with their election campaigns; the French president may have postponed his visit for reasons of health. The US president must have had a number of reasons for canceling his visits abroad, specifically Katrina’s devastating aftereffects. The British prime minister seems to have enough problems to cope with besides Ukraine; London took over the EU chairmanship this July. They say it was hard to talk Tony Blair into making the trip to Kyiv to attend the Ukraine-EU summit (originally scheduled for October, now December).
So what is the efficiency ratio of Viktor Yushchenko’s trips abroad? Thirty-seven visits scheduled for 2006: is this a lot or a little? The Day addressed these questions to the former foreign minister of Ukraine, Anatoliy ZLENKO.
BLITZ INTERVIEW
Anatoliy Zlenko, ex-foreign minister:
Ukraine is a large European country; of course, it must be duly represented in international relations. Viktor Yushchenko’s visits abroad correspond to our national interests. Please note that during such trips he is placing major emphasis on attracting foreign investments to our economy. Much will undoubtedly depend on the arrangements for such presidential trips; on how professionally every agenda will be prepared. It’s hard to assess the effectiveness of Yushchenko’s previous visits abroad, but I am convinced that they were useful.
Do you think that Ukraine has made the most of its attractive international climate in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution?
Zlenko: Considerable efforts were made, of course. However, it should be admitted that the positive legacy of the Orange Revolution has not been used to the fullest. We are witnesses to the current leadership’s active foreign political endeavors. However, the foreign ministry and the president’s secretariat should arrange for visits to Ukraine by other presidents and prime ministers. This would demonstrate the degree of interest shown in Ukraine on the part of this or that country; this would allow us to build up foreign political dialogue.
Are there any grounds for the criticism being leveled at our president — that he is paying little attention to domestic political problems because of his visits abroad?
Zlenko: I’m certainly opposed to visits being made for the sake of visiting. Visits can’t be turned into tourist trips, taking along a big entourage, people who would just be a waste of time. I don’t mean the president, I’m talking in general. However, I can’t agree with those who say the president shouldn’t go abroad. If he is received by this or that country, this adds to our country’s foreign political effort.
In comparison with the number of trips made by other heads of state, are Viktor Yushchenko’s 37 visits too much or too little?
Zlenko: We could be ahead of other countries in this sense. Yet every country has its reasons. For example, the presidents of the leading European countries make fewer trips abroad, but their national histories are centuries old. There is a certain system of mutual relationships established there. Ukraine is a young state that recently celebrated its 14th anniversary of independence, so we have to travel a very long road to occupy our rightful place in the system of international coordinates.
