Ukraine is stuck between the competing demands of the European Union and Russia. The EU is demanding from Ukraine more democracy and rule of law before moving closer to signing the association agreement and free trade area with the EU that Ukraine is seeking. The Oct. 28 parliamentary elections in Ukraine are going to be yet another litmus test for the EU on Ukraine's democratic credentials. At the same time, Russia's major concern is to pull Ukraine into its Customs Union, an objective Ukraine's leadership has been so far opposing.The Kyiv Post asked James Sherr, a senior fellow at the Chatham House, a London-based think tank, to assess President Viktor Yanukovych’s options. Sherr says Yanukovych has been good at fighting Russian pressure, but needs to reshuffle his closest circle of advisers and improve conditions domestically to have a chance of winning another term as president in 2015.
Kyiv Post: A few years ago it seemed like Ukraine was on a steady path towards closer relations with the EU. How would you describe where Ukraine is now?
James Sherr: First of all, Ukraine was not on a steady path. It was on an oblique and irregular path, but one that allowed the relationship to be discussed in terms of hope and reasonable expectations of progress. Today the status of Ukraine’s relationship with the EU is destructive. It’s destructive both to that relationship and even more destructive to Ukraine itself. The customary gap between declaration and implementation that has been part of Ukraine’s whole experience as an independent state has become almost obscenely, flagrantly and provocatively wide since the autumn of 2010. And none of these can be rectified by words. I am afraid to say that after the enormous efforts that have been put into finding and establishing the common ground and common language with the current authorities in Ukraine, we are now at the point when nobody in Europe will believe anything said by the structures of power here. The only things that will impress Europe are deeds.
KP: What do you think have been the biggest mistakes and successes by President Viktor Yanukovych?
JS: Even the successes are mixed. The biggest success is that he has partially advanced his one real priority, which is to establish long-term political and economic dominance over the country. Even in this respect he has been only tactically and operationally astute, but strategically unwise. He won a legitimate election in 2010, and everyone accepts this, but he could not win one today.
He had a chance. There was a strong expectation in the country and in Europe that after the enormous disappointments of the [President Viktor] Yushchenko-[Prime Minister Yulia] Tymoshenko tandem, he would be a unifying figure, a pragmatic figure in the best sense: able to bring people together across regions on the basis of efficient, competent and predictable government and economic management.
Within weeks he demonstrated that his interest in holding power, to expand his hold on power, would take precedence irrespective of how others regarded it. And to this end, it sometimes seems as if he has struck bargains with extreme forces in the country who are his polar opposites. He has done everything to destroy the reasonable center ground and any decent and viable alternative to his system of governance.
So, this is a stunning tactical and operational level success, but a strategic failure. And it now makes it even more unlikely that he will begin a process of compromise for fear that he will lose everything. His failures are the opposite side of this coin. There is no perception amongst thoughtful circles of people today, either inside Ukraine or outside it, that the current authorities have advanced or are profoundly interested in advancing the national interest of the country.
I would put it in the following way. Yanukovych and his government have no wish for Ukraine to join the Russian Customs Union. They do not wish to be integrated with Russia. They understand this would be politically destructive to them internally. Nobody elected Yanukovych to become a Russian governor. But it is my view that if he had to make a choice, he would prefer to be president of a Ukraine that entered the Customs Union than not be president of a Ukraine that joined the European Union.
KP: Has Yanukovych crossed the point of no return? And what can and should Yanukovych do to return the trust of the EU?
JS: There are no points of no return in history. There is no such thing as a point of no return for a country. Even Yanukovych has a possibility of return. In my view, he needs to do two things. First, he needs to take some immediate steps to demonstrate that he has heard the messages that have come from both inside the country and outside it and change course.
KP: For example?
JS: First, release all political prisoners in the country and, along with that, remove the mechanisms – overt and subtle – of intimidation of the media, of higher educational institutions and so on.
And as far as possible, put an end to corporate raiding and extortion of people’s property.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, he needs to replace the people around him, including some of his closest associates and lieutenants. By no stretch of the imagination do I mean he has to replace them with opposition figures or those whom the opposition would necessarily favor.
The Party of Regions and their supporters, after all, were originally a broad church. It was not a narrow circle. And within that domain there are people who understand and have the competence to address the key, non-ideological issues of competency in government and decent economic management, including an intelligent tax code that encourages investment, growth and attracts foreign investment into the country — which also requires judicial integrity.
Everyone knows you do not do these things by decree. They take time. But there must be a wish to do them, and they will only be done by appointing people to positions of authority who share these objectives and have the competence to carry them out, despite the compromises that have to be made along the way.
So, this does not mean appointing people whose sterling qualification is that they are liberals and democrats. It means appointing those who understand what efficient leadership and administration and the country is. That’s what he was elected to do. I preserve the optimism that he is capable of doing this if this message gets through to him. If the message were to get through, he will have time within his present term in the office to rescue himself. And if the opposition is still in disarray as a result of these measures, he can then be elected for a second term as president.
KP: You said that he has to release political prisoners. But every time Yanukovych is faced with messages like this one, he says that he legally has no authority over it.
JS: He will say anything, because he does not want to do it. That’s not the issue. Politicians and diplomats have been experts since before the Old Testament in saying that black is white and vice versa.
KP: You said that Yanukovych’s closest circle of people is not quite competent. Who, in you view, should be replaced first in Yanukovych’s circle?
JS: As you know perfectly well, in 20 years of working here, it is one of my traits not to name names. So, I am not going to name any of these people today.
KP: How many of these people are there?
JS: I don’t know. I think we are talking about a relatively small number of people who he listens to today.
KP: 5-10 people?
JS: I think we are talking about a relatively small number of people and somewhat larger echelon including a number who have ministerial-level appointments. But I am referring to the key people he now listens to, including those who have no formal position at all.
KP: You mean the oligarchs that back him up?
JS: I repeat, we are talking about a relatively small number of people. Talking about oligarchs makes no sense in a system which is defined by the fusion of political and economic power. Of course, I include people who have considerable economic means, whether they formally hold political power or not. But not all people with considerable economic means in the country are so narrowly focused to believe that the current economic policy benefits their long-term interests. Why is it, after all, that most of these so-called oligarchs want an Association Agreement and free trade area with the European Union rather than join the Customs Union with Russia? Because they know the latter course offers no long-term future for them and their businesses.
KP: You said what Yanukovych has to do in order to improve his credentials. But if he fails to do that, what should and will Europe do?
JS: Europe will do nothing. At worst, Europe will confuse the issue, damage its credibility, humiliate itself by sending yet more emissaries to seek yet more meetings to make the same arguments, to plead and cajole. And as long as Europe does this, it will preserve an illusion – and I stress it is an illusion – that Yanukovych will win his battle of attrition and secure the EU’s signature on the Association Agreement and grant him everything else he wants.
It is uncomfortable for decent Western people to realize there are moments in history when you cannot help, when the best course is to do nothing. That is where we find ourselves with respect to the authorities. Everything that needs to be said has been said. But on the other hand, there is the country. There are all manner of relationships that are legitimate and necessary for us to maintain and develop— at the official level, the business level and at the informal level with interested sectors of opinion and economic interests in the country. The West is not paying sufficient attention to that.
I would stress that the most critical group for this country’s future is the class of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in the country. They understand from their own personal interest and experience what the economic, legal and political standards of the European Union mean in practice and what they offer for Ukraine. But what kind of relationships now exist at an institutional level between these people and Western institutions? Very few.
KP: Will Russia’s leadership capitalize on Yanukovych’s mistakes?
JS: They will do everything that they possibly can. They feel that they are in an extremely strong position. At the same time, they are very frustrated, because it seems that Ukraine is unwilling to recognize this strength and act accordingly. That’s because – and, by the way, I do complement the President on this – he is very tough.
I’ll give you an example of his toughness. Ukraine, to my understanding, has recently resumed defense cooperation with Georgia. Here, whatever private motives might exist, Yanukovych is possibly sending Russia a message: if you are really determined to break us, there are things we can do to you as well. If we have to engage in this sort of game, we will. He is very tough. Even if at some point he were forced to join the customs union (though I don’t think it will happen), Ukraine would cheat, it would maneuver, and the Russians would regret that Ukraine joined. He would wreck it. Well, I like him for that.
It is necessary to be a tough guy with tough people. Nice guys usually don’t know how. Sometimes you have to adopt the manners of the “kommunalka” (communal flat).
KP: With all of the circumstances that are building up in Ukraine and in its immediate neighborhood do you see that Ukraine will have free and fair parliamentary elections in October that would be recognized by independent observers? What’s your view on how thing will evolve?
JS: No, I see absolutely no possibility there will be free and fair election or that an election would be recognized as free and fair. We will have more of the same … And then Ukraine’s position will continue to get worse. And ordinary people in Ukraine (and by ordinary people I mean everyone else, I don’t simply mean those without a university education) will continue doing what they are doing now. They will find their own strategy of opting out, of maintaining some integrity and decency in their own lives, of working together with friends and family to achieve the unpolitical, uncivic aim of getting by and surviving. And they will try to ignore the authorities as much as possible.
KP: Just like in the Soviet Union?
JS: Exactly, but probably worse. The Soviet Union was until its declining years a predictable place. The only thing predictable about Ukraine at the moment is that you will always be harassed by the authorities. Whatever “ponyatia i dogovorennosti” (terms and conditions) you reach with them, it will never be over. They come back, harass you and demand more.
KP: Do you see that Europe might actually introduce some sanctions against some of Ukraine’s officials or create a so called ‘black list’ of people who might not get visas to Europe?
JS: I can see something happening through Congressional legislation in the United States. I cannot see the EU doing this. I personally do not believe in it. I think it is a terrible distraction. I think it will confuse the issue. It will make it more difficult rather than easier to influence not only the authorities, but people surrounding them who do listen. What we need to do, in defence of our own national interests in Europe is uphold our own rules firmly in our own jurisdictions. So, if we find that people are laundering money through our banking system the full force of the law has to be visited upon them. If people are doing business through shell companies and other semi-legal structures, if they are committing fraud, they have to be exposed and face criminal sanction.
And the same is true with Russia where some of its energy entities have conducted this mode of business for a long period of time and with a sense of impunity. The best things in this regard that the EU has done in 20 years was the Third Energy Package, along with the decision of the commission to conduct raids and seize documents from some of Gazprom’s covert partners in the EU who are suspected of violating the law.
These are not sanctions or politically motivated punishments but upholding the integrity of our legal and values space. And that will send a message that the current mode of governance and business is not only at variance with ours, but damaging to business prospects and profits. And that is a much more powerful message than to say that the son of this minister cannot attend school in Britain or that this particular individual cannot travel to Europe.
Читайте це інтерв’ю українською на сайті kyivpost.ua
Kyiv Post staff writer Yuriy Onyshkiv can be reached at [email protected].
