US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst is known in the journalistic community as arguably one of the most laconic diplomats. The Day’s recent interview with the ambassador, however, has largely dispelled this myth about Mr. Herbst, who has been working in Ukraine for already two years. Although concise, his replies and judgments are quite incisive, given the diplomatic status of Mr. Herbst. Perhaps this is due to his experience and greater familiarity with the processes unfolding in Ukraine. On the other hand, this may be due to what he discusses in the interview: since the new government does not heed even open criticism, it should not be expected to decipher subtle diplomatic innuendos.
Yesterday the United States celebrated its 229th Independence Day, a holiday that is perhaps most honored by the American nation. Putting into practice their vision of freedom, the Americans have managed to build a country, which the rest of the world has to reckon with. Perhaps the attitude toward America can be phrased as follows: one may not like the US for its objective albeit hyperbolized vision of itself as a country with a mission to protect, educate, and dispense advice. Yet the Americans must be given their due for having built a society, in which personal responsibility and freedom come first.
One may either silently ignore or make note of the signals given by Ambassador John Herbst. The US, which has placed great hopes on the Orange Revolution and the new Ukrainian government, cannot be an indifferent observer when something is going amiss in the apparently new conditions. The previous leadership had been cold-shouldered by the White House. What has it gained in the long run? It appears that today the United States is voicing its first reservations about the first steps taken by the “Orange government.”
“A group of influential American politicians, including Madeleine Albright, James Baker, and Henry Kissinger, have asked the US president to give more active support to Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO and EU membership. Do you think this is a natural desire to support Ukraine or do the bearers of this message have some grounds for concern?”
“I think their message is quite clear: they believe that Ukraine will benefit from NATO membership and that this membership is in the interests of both the alliance and the US. Of course, this is their personal view, but, as you can see, these are influential people. During President Viktor Yushchenko’s visit in Washington, the US government also positively appraised this approach. Ukraine is showing interest in Euro-Atlantic integration, which we fully share and are trying to help you.”
“The impression is that our government has been of two minds for a long time. The latest speculation about the SES (Single Economic Space) as a probable alternative to the EU, unclear statements about whether NATO is the ultimate goal of our foreign political course (Petro Poroshenko, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, finally said it only a few days ago), may raise certain doubts inside and outside the country about the course being pursued.”
“Naturally, Ukraine must make a clear choice. We believe that Ukraine’s interest in integration with the West is a good thing. We also remember that the previous government of Ukraine said the same thing. As for the SES, I remember it was a burning issue in the days when I had just come to Ukraine. Our stand was the same as it is now. We are aware that Ukraine undoubtedly shares some interests with Russia and other SES countries. It is good that Ukraine is developing these interests, but one must also take into account other priorities, such as WTO membership. It is important not to take steps in one sphere, which will complicate things in another.”
“There’s the rub. Even President Yushchenko admitted that there is a delay in passing laws that would allow Ukraine to meet the WTO deadline. What is this: lack of resolve or reluctance on the part of MPs?”
“We think that Ukraine, or any other country, can only prosper economically if it is a WTO member — not only because WTO members conduct a better trade, trade being an important factor in the development of any national economy. To enter this organization it is also crucial to carry out a series of reforms that will lay the groundwork for sustainable development and to pass a number of laws that will put the economy on a market footing. Of course, we wish that the Verkhovna Rada had already passed the laws necessary for WTO membership. We highly appreciate the aspiration of the state and President Yushchenko to adopt these laws, but what is also badly needed is cooperation among all the deputies who belong to the ruling coalition’s factions.”
“In Washington George Bush and Viktor Yushchenko signed a declaration stating that the two countries would do their best to complete bilateral talks so that Ukraine could join the WTO as early as this year. To what extent is this possible now that crucial laws have been voted down in parliament not least because of a lack of support from the pro-governmental factions?”
“I know it has been common practice here — since the Soviet era — to maintain international relations on the basis of documents that reflect the commitments of both sides. In my view, this is a bit too formal. As for the document that was signed during the Washington visit, I would say it proclaims hopes and aspirations rather than commitments. Undoubtedly, we would like to see all the provisions of this document implemented, but we do not consider them binding. You are right when you speak about the essence of the document. I mean that, to become a WTO member, Ukraine must pass quite a few laws, and it is a pity that they haven’t been passed yet. Regrettably, one of the causes of this situation is the failure of many members of the pro-governmental factions to support these laws. I hope the government will somehow find support in the Rada to have these laws passed.”
“The previous government used to work this way: when an important decision had to be made, people would turn up to inveigle the MPs to become involved in legislation, not without some sort of compensation.”
“What you’ve said means that political life is generally difficult. I still think that everyone will agree that the government is now working more or less according to democratic principles, not authoritarian ones, which not always but quite often characterized the previous leadership’s policies. Naturally, we do not want the new government to resort to those methods. Yet it is important to understand that there are purely democratic ways to achieve one’s goals. There is such a thing as political discipline: even in a democracy, party leaders should know how to run their parties for the country’s benefit.”
“Could you tell us how political discipline is maintained in the US? Can you recall any instances when Republican congressmen were expelled from the party for failing to follow the president’s line or to vote on some important issue contrary to the party’s guidelines?
“Party discipline is one of the most important arts that a democratic political leader must possess. I remember an interesting incident that occurred in the Senate a few years ago, when a senator quit his party because he either disagreed with the party’s overall approach or could not endure the criticism of his fellow party members. But he quit on his own.”
“In other words, there is no such thing as expulsion from the party?”
“I don’t know. All I can say is that a step like this cannot be considered undemocratic. This may be part of democratic politics because a party is a joint group of people.”
“The past few months have seen a notable tendency toward criticism and expressing disappointment, especially on the part of Western experts, such as Anders Aslund, James Sherr, and others. A current joke in Kyiv says that the Orange Revolution is turning into a socialist one. Do you share the critics’ views? Do they mean exaggerated expectations or concrete mistakes of the new government, above all, with respect to economic policy?”
“We think that the new government wants to satisfy the people and, in our view, it is a very good step to levy taxes the way it is done in democratic countries. It seems to us that now taxes are being collected from all those who are liable to pay them. This is a positive improvement in Ukraine. The same applies to customs duties. This has essentially boosted revenues. In other words, the country has benefited from this, which we can only commend. Still, I think that, in an attempt to appease the people, the state is resorting to the most explicit methods: they have radically increased pensions and wages and adopted other measures to raise the living standards. On the one hand, this is good because there really are many poor people in Ukraine. But, on the other hand, every leader in any state should take into account his country’s resources and the requirements of economic development. This means it is first and foremost necessary to create conditions for investments and to let people work fruitfully. In our view, there are some problems here. Firstly, we must ask a very important question: can this country afford to meet budgetary commitments? If it can’t, the economy will come to a standstill. The next question: all economists know that every economy has phenomena that complicate the life of part of the population. How can these be overcome? For example, this government wants to solve such problems as meat and fuel price hikes. Unfortunately, we often see the application of administrative measures that are socialist in nature. And if the second half of the last century has proved anything, it has proved that socialism is not the way to build a prosperous national economy. The Ukrainian leadership says it believes in the market, and we hope it will be pursuing a market- oriented policy. In this case I am sure Ukraine will be an economically prosperous country.”
“Do you think the government has at least begun to separate itself from business? At one time you had a conversation with Yuriy Lutsenko, Minister of the Interior, in which you expressed concern over reports that there are corrupt people in the present government, too.”
“It is not so easy to measure corruption, but I think that certain progress has been made to combat it. For example, the customs office says that duties collection has gone up threefold. This means they have much less corruption than they had eight or nine months ago. Still, there are rumors of corruption even today, including the possibility of influence on the part of businessmen closely linked to the government. I don’t have any real information so far, but, undoubtedly, if the state says it is determined to eradicate corruption, it must take a very judicious and cautious approach to this situation.”
“It was widely expected that an investment boom would sweep through Ukraine after the Orange Revolution. Why has this not happened?”
“There was no boom because, instead of carrying out economic reforms, the government applies administrative measures from time to time. I would also like to broach the problem of reprivatization, a very delicate matter indeed. I know that many Ukrainians are, to put it mildly, concerned over the fact that the country’ resources were not just sold but sold for rock-bottom prices in the past 12- 13 years. The idea is to return these resources to the state for fairness’ sake. If the question only concerned fairness, I would say it is a sound idea. But it doesn’t just concern fairness but the overall well-being of this country as well. What seems to be the most important factor for Ukraine’s development is the creation of favorable conditions for investments. If Ukraine begins to revise a long series of privatization deals, new investors may view Ukraine as a country where investments are not protected. You may be aware that I was one of the first critics of the Kryvorizhstal privatization. So I fully realize why people have what I describe as an emotional reaction to this matter. But if the new government is unable to rapidly solve the reprivatization problem, if it says that almost all businesses may be subject to reprivatization, you won’t see any inflow of the capital that this country needs so badly. Many Ukrainian politicians tell me that ordinary people are looking forward to reprivatization because it is a matter of justice. There must be some truth in this, for at this moment the majority of Ukrainians want this. But, my opinion is that while Ukrainians may really want this, what they want most of all is a better life. So if the government fails to pursue an investment-friendly policy, the people will not live better.”
“The investigation of the Gongadze case has long been an indicator of our state’s reputation. Now the impression is that this investigation has ground to a halt in Ukraine. Is it still going on in the US? Has Mykola Melnychenko testified before the FBI?”
“American officials know only too well that it is better to keep silent about a case while an investigation is still in progress. So I can’t comment on this issue.”
“You said at one of your first press conferences in Kyiv that you have more questions than answers about the Gongadze case. Do you have fewer questions now?”
“If a crime was committed very long ago, it is not unusual to have a lot of questions.”
“From the very outset The Day has been critical of the current cabinet lineup. We never upheld the view that a politician who wins the presidential election should form his cabinet according to some quota scheme. We also believed that if left-wing politicians were included in the cabinet, they could be hardly expected to carry out liberal reforms. What can we expect from the parliamentary elections if even now opinion polls are showing that a sizable part of the population favors the Belarusian model? And you are absolutely right that the majority supports reprivatization, which, incidentally, is already being considered a pre-election ploy. What can we expect from the new parliament in this connection?”
“I don’t know what to expect from the new parliament. It is always dangerous to predict election results as well as the parliament’s post-election approaches. I accept the poll results because the majority of the population really began to live better after the new government’s latest steps, i.e., pension and wages hike. It is only natural that people support these governmental actions. But this brings us to the following question: What will the economic situation be like a year or so from now and what will be the living standards then? The Ukrainian economy has been on a steep rise in the past four or five years. Of course, this development was possible owing to decisions that were made during Viktor Yushchenko’s tenure as prime minister and Yuliya Tymoshenko as his first deputy. But other prime ministers — Anatoliy Kinakh and Viktor Yanukovych — also pursued a good macroeconomic policy. We will soon see what interference in the economy can result in and whether there will be economic growth in a year’s time. Changes in the economic policy can bear upon growth only after some time. I am somewhat concerned about the prospects because, let me repeat, development is indispensable without investments.”
“Would US companies like to invest in the Ukrainian market?”
“I can say that US investors began to think about Ukraine already two or three years ago. They saw that the economy was on the rise, the population was rather large and highly educated, and wages were low. There were many general economic indicators that are attractive to investors. But they were afraid to invest their capital because of huge problems caused by corruption and lack of transparency. When Viktor Yushchenko won the elections, they became even more interested in Ukraine because he promised during his election campaign to tackle all these problems. This is why we expected an investment boom in Ukraine, which never occurred due to the above-mentioned actions. If the government stops adopting administrative measures and takes additional steps to combat corruption and curb bureaucracy, then I am sure there will be a tremendous inflow of not just American capital to Ukraine. You have very great advantages.”
“We feel a bit awkward about asking the next question: it has been common practice in the last while to ask about repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Why doesn’t the US Congress finally repeal it, which will give another signal to US business that things are now much better in Ukraine?”
“The Bush administration favors lifting this amendment, but resolving this problem also depends on Congress. Of course, there are a lot of Ukraine-friendly congressmen now, and many of them would like to see this amendment repealed. But we also have other interests. One must also take into account the practice that has existed for the past decade: Congress would lift the Jackson-Vanik amendment as soon as a country was about to join the WTO. This usually happens in the last weeks before the entry. Naturally, we want Congress to lift this amendment, but its existence does not greatly influence the intentions of US business. If Ukraine managed to create favorable conditions for capital, it could face an investment boom even with the Jackson-Vanik amendment in force. This amendment is of a purely symbolic nature and does not play any role.”
“But presidents Yushchenko and Bush signed a joint declaration that they ‘favor the immediate repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.’ Very recently President Yushchenko drew thunderous applause from congressmen who were chanting his name. One would think that after such a welcome there would be no enemies of Ukraine in the US Congress. What is happening?”
“The point is interests, not enemies. I was in Congress when Viktor Yushchenko was speaking. Of course, it was a stunning moment. All the congressmen, without exception, applauded his speech. I remember some senators and representatives standing up when he mentioned the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I was watching very closely. I would say about two-thirds of those present stood up. If they had been voting, the amendment would have been repealed. But it was also interesting how they were rising to their feet. There were four waves. Some congressmen rose immediately. The second wave stood up 15-20 seconds later, the third one after a minute, and the fourth one after perhaps one and a half minutes. It seemed to me that some stood up not because they were prepared to vote for repealing the amendment at that very moment. I think it was caused by other interests. But, let me say this again, you are talking about the joint declaration as a concrete commitment...”
“But it contains clear-cut commitments, not just wishes or expectations...”
“Look at this document very carefully. The point is what one country wants to do and what another country wants to do. We do not blame the government of Ukraine for failing to meet its commitments about the WTO. We are just saying that if you want to join the WTO, you should do what we said above.”
“But Ukraine has fulfilled its obligations with respect to Cuba and Belarus — perhaps contrary to its interests...”
“I think that if Ukraine is a democracy, it should reflect this in its foreign policy. So it is not quite correct to say that this was kind of a gift to America. Undoubtedly, we highly appreciated Ukraine’s position. We thanked your leadership, but we also interpreted this as a true sign that you are defending your democratic principles in the international arena, too.”
“But in this country this was interpreted as a shortage of money for such a high standard of democracy. When Cuba offered to provide medical treatment to children suffering from the Chornobyl disaster, we had to choose between treating them at our own expense and refraining from making any sharply worded comments.”
“Are you sure that all the children who went to Cuba were victims of the disaster?”
“We do not rule out abuses, but the public at large took a dim view of Ukraine’s position on Cuba and Belarus because of our inability to take a ‘big enough step’.”
“Firstly, I think it would be good if you, journalists, studied the true effect of the Cuban program on the children affected by Chornobyl in order to be able to discuss this problem knowledgeably. Secondly, we understand this situation, and I think you will soon see the fruits of our understanding.”
“You were once the US ambassador to Uzbekistan. To what extent do you think the world community is responsible for the events in Andijan, for the groundwork for them was laid long ago, including the days of your ambassadorial tenure?”
“I am not responsible now for our policies toward Uzbekistan, but the US believes that an international commission should investigate what happened in Andijan. Both at the time of my residence in Uzbekistan and now we have insisted that the human rights situation in that country needs drastic changes. Even in the period of closest cooperation we kept telling the government of Uzbekistan that we could not establish a really strong and close relationship between our countries without considerable progress in this sphere.”
“Speaking of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, you repeatedly used the word ‘interests’.”
“First of all, I mean economic interests. Membership in the WTO requires the lifting of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. There are always economic interests with respect to one country or another.”
“Could you say that if the Verkhovna Rada passed a law on intellectual property protection, including protection against counterfeit CDs, which mostly affects US companies, this would essentially ease the lifting of the Jackson-Vanik amendment?”
“This would undoubtedly play a role. However, I cannot say that if one thing is done, the other will follow automatically. I want to say again that when a country enters the WTO, it radically changes the conditions of trade with all members of this organization, including the US. This means that this step will influence the economic interests of many other countries. These interests are also important. As an optimist, I believe that if Ukraine does everything necessary to become a WTO member, the Jackson-Vanik amendment will not be an obstacle. Ukraine now has a fine reputation in Congress because everyone thinks that the Ukrainian people defended their right to elect the president. Therefore, in spite of all the existing problems, this is a huge achievement that gives many people in the West a reason to look at Ukraine with affection.”
“Communicating with a wide range of politicians is part of an ambassador’s job. What about your dialogue with the opposition?”
“I am in quite close contact with its representatives. As you know, I have repeatedly met Mr. Yanukovych, invited Mr. Marchuk, Mr. Boiko, and representatives of the Communist Party. I meet them quite often because this is part of my job. The US has frequently said that it did not promote a certain candidate in the presidential elections: it was only interested in the process itself. So if the new opposition forms a new government after the parliamentary elections, OK, we will be ready to work with them. But, I must add, only in the event that the elections are fair and clean.”
“Do you have any doubts?”
“You know that we funded many observers for the presidential elections. We are again planning to send a large number of them to the parliamentary elections because old traditions die hard.”
“The new leadership has repeatedly said that there is still no opposition in Ukraine. Do you agree?”
“I think this is the opinion of not just the new government but also the majority of political analysts. But I do not understand this idea. There are opposition parties and obviously they are doing rather effective work in parliament. Polls show that at least one person in these parties enjoys high popularity. So how can one say that there is no opposition? I think it exists and it is quite strong.”
“Mr. Ambassador, we have to ask you the next question — otherwise neither our readers nor our colleagues will understand us. Information was recently leaked that you allegedly spoke to
Prosecutor-General Sviatoslav Piskun. The Prosecutor-General’s Office has even instituted criminal proceedings, thus indirectly admitting this fact. Would you comment on this?”
“This means that, unfortunately, offices are bugged in Ukraine. This is all I can say about this ‘alleged conversation’.”
“How did the State Department react?”
“Naturally, I informed them about this. Their reaction was the same as mine: we wish there were no bugging.”
“Mr. Ambassador, what priest were you defending? For the conversation in question pivoted on a priest.”
“That this was published means that people expect somebody to be subjected to eavesdropping. This situation clarifies everything.”
“Greater freedom of the mass media is considered one of the positive changes in the past few months. At the same time, transparency has remained at the same level, especially on television. There is so much talk now about changing the format of television broadcasting and redistributing TV channels, especially Inter and 1+1, but society knows very little about these plans and suspects the government of being directly involved in this. Do you think the media are now more transparent or do you feel some concern?”
“We don’t have any information that there are official media guidelines. So I can say for sure that the media situation is much better than it was a year ago. This is about state influence on the media. I do not think that the current government is trying to influence them the way the previous one did.
But conditions for the media as a whole and about who can own them — these are different questions. In all democratic countries the state draws up development plans in one field or another without disclosing them because it has the right to confidential planning. I think the new government is now considering the question of media development and drawing up plans. I consider it only natural that it is doing this confidentially. Let us see what they come up with.”
“This in fact sparks the desire to eavesdrop on everyone, if we didn’t suspect that the government is trying to grab, via stooges, the new channels of influence as the elections are approaching...”
“It is precisely the duty of journalists to look into this process and expose the scheme. This is the principle of media work in genuinely free countries.”
“Things go this way in many cases, but there is a fear that the government is reluctant to listen.”
“This is an entirely different question.”
“Yet, the government seems to hear Western embassies very well, which is also a way of expressing public fear.”
“I think the new government would be pursuing a different economic policy if your guesses were correct.”
“This is just wishful thinking. We, and many of our colleagues, touch upon issues that the public is concerned about, such as the relocation of the president’s Secretariat to Maryinsky Palace, the problem with the Children’s Medical Center, etc. We must admit that everyone, irrespective of their political leanings, is saying the same thing: they are concerned about these things. This may tarnish the new leadership’s reputation on the eve of the elections.”
“I see. Not just evidence but even rumors can ruin a person. But as far as I know, these are just rumors.”
“The relocation to Maryinsky Palace was announced by the president’s new property manager; as for the intention to build houses in a nature preserve, there was an announcement by the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast governor. And nobody has denied this. The public can consider this an opportunity to be heard and told, ‘We got the message and have reversed our policies.’ We have not yet seen this kind of reaction. If you ever have this answer, please tell us.”
“Alright.”
“When can we expect George Bush to visit Ukraine? Is it possible that President Bush will see Kyiv during his second term? Mr. Bush Sr. spoke here twice: not very successfully during the first visit and very successfully during the second one. But George W. Bush hasn’t visited Kyiv yet.”
“There was a summit only two months ago, so it is difficult for me to say when my president will come to Ukraine. I think our relations have become much better and this tendency will only be growing. High-level contacts between our countries occur much more often now: two US secretaries have already visited this country since the presidential summit.”
