Evaluating Ukraine’s progress, from both a domestic and international perspective, in implementing the political reforms necessary to achieve the country’s ultimate stated goal — membership in NATO and the EU — was the goal of “Roundtable V: Ukraine’s Transition to a Stable Democracy,” organized in mid-September by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America in Washington, DC.
The series of roundtables devoted to Ukraine’s transition to a stable democracy was launched in April 2000 by a number of Ukrainian and US organizations that assembled to discuss various ways of boosting Ukrainian-American relations. The result was an agreement to hold such conferences annually, involving prominent representatives from the academic and private sectors, as well as Ukrainian, US, and EU officials.
Approximately 75 experts and speakers took part in Roundtable V. Three out of four plenary meetings focused on Ukraine’s progress in establishing the supremacy of the law, advancing a civil society, and protecting fundamental civil rights and freedoms. During the fourth session, speakers and their opponents attempted to answer the question, “Can the experience of Ukraine’s post-Soviet neighbors help Ukraine build a nation-state and civil society, and protect individual rights?” The participants also discussed the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine. Guests of the roundtable, representing the third and fourth estates, as well as those from various other Ukrainian political sectors, voiced their opinions.
“America is a major player in this geopolitical game; its position has a very tangible impact on that of Ukraine, meaning that it is especially important to enhance relations with the United States,” stressed Valery Pustovoitenko, MP, leader of the National Democratic Party, commenting on the results of the meeting in Washington. He believes that US power structures, relying on their own experience, are forming a certain image of European structures and that this image is being heavily relied upon in the shaping of foreign political strategies.
Such experience, nevertheless, does not always prove useful for Ukraine. The participants of Roundtable V, specifically People’s Deputy Oleksandr Feldman, regretfully stated that very little is known about Ukraine in the world, and that what little is known is mostly negative. “Ukraine is associated with countries, such as Uruguay or Belarus, people aren’t even sure about its name. Our purpose was to talk about ourselves, that we don’t live in palm trees, that we were making progress,” explained Mr. Feldman. He believes that Ukraine’s tarnished image is partially explained by the parliamentary opposition’s desire to complain to foreign institutions about “governmental arbitrariness. As a result, Ukrainian realities are portrayed abroad rather one-sidedly, in the context of the Gongadze case, the Kolchuga or Melnychenko tapes scandals, along with other unappetizing issues. Nor could such issues be avoided this time. In Mr. Feldman’s opinion, one of the reasons was the “disproportion” of the Ukrainian delegation, which included more opposition members than their political opponents. The same was true of the media people present. Mr. Pustovoitenko, however, said that not all of those who were invited attended the meeting, saying the time was not right, considering that presidential campaigns are in progress in Ukraine, as well as the US. Campaign topics naturally dominated the conference. Senators, congressmen, and diaspora activists stoically ignored hints from the opposition and agreed that Ukraine’s best president would be the candidate elected by the people, in the course of fair elections. According to an observer, one expert present even suggested slapping economic sanctions on Ukraine — “just in case.”
However, the conference did note the strengthening of trade and business contacts between our countries, as well as progress in the domestic economy. Among other things, problems related to freedom of speech, local self-government, and transparency of the executive branch were discussed. Delegates from volunteer organizations, experts, scientists, journalists, and politicians delivered speeches. For example, the topic of Oleksandr Feldman’s speech concerned the status of ethnic minorities in Ukraine, “because the situation here appears better, by certain indices, than in the developed European countries.”
The conference did not adopt a document summarizing its results, but an analysis of the Ukrainian delegation’s performance in Washington will very likely produce more than sufficient food for thought.
