That very Senate gave birth to a
very tough resolution on Ukraine in September last year, which called on the
authorities to release political prisoners and threatened them with potential
sanctions.
Kerry’s move to the State Department
can have profound consequences for the Ukrainian authorities. The Senate
resolution called on the U.S. State
Department to introduce visa sanctions against those who stifle democracy in
our country – primarily those who violated human rights and were involved in
the imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko and other opposition members.
This document is not a directive for
the State Department, but there are grounds to expect that Kerry will take into
consideration the recommendation which effectively appeared with his blessing.
This is especially likely considering that events in Ukraine are still causing
a lot of worries and interest among the American establishment.
The intensity of this interest has
gone down somewhat as the newly elected Congress is settling in. But the new
congressmen will soon get their grip on the situation, and it seems that the
Ukrainian theme will still ring loudly – that’s the impression I got from
conversations while I visited the United States to take part in the prayer
breakfast with Barack Obama. It hosted representatives from 160
countries, including 10 people from Ukraine.
The other issue American politicians
are figuring out is the future presidential election in Ukraine in 2015. The
first question on everyone’s mind is whether Tymoshenko will take part in it.
And if she is prevented from running by President Viktor Yanukovych’s regime,
what are the chances of other candidates from the opposition?
Of course, the Americans will be
favoring the candidate from the democratic camp, so the opposition should
remember it is being closely watched. Every potential candidate should be
planning a communications campaign with the American counterparts.
However, membership in the
democratic camp is no longer just a formal declaration. One of the main things
that matter for the US (and the west in principle) is whether the new leaders
have clear strategies for the development of our country, and their personal motivation
for driving the change. Leaders who strive for this change in Ukraine
will be supported, those will fit into the modern requirements as to what a new
Ukrainian society should be like.
The West expects from the new leadership to be open to communication
and able to conduct a true dialogue.
Our Western counterparts realize that the political
force which is stuck in wallowing in its own phobias is doomed to failure.
As far as leaders go, the West will not accept people who consider politics to be the
most profitable business, and are trying to make their fortune through taking
part in the political process. On the other hand, the leaders who are prepared
to give up their principles for the sake of fame are not acceptable either.
In short, conversations in
Washington give one a feeling that there is a new view of what the leader of
Ukrainian opposition should be like: a moral authority whose influence on
politics grows rapidly.
So Ukraine’s opposition needs a
strategy, it needs to stand strong to the regime of President Viktor
Yanukovych, and learn to communicate their position to both its Western counterparts, and – more importantly – the voters.
This demands a new look around for a set of new tools,
new people and hard work every day.
Provided the opposition sets the
right goals towards democracy, transparency and freedom, it can get a lot of
help form the international democratic community, including one of its major
players, the USA.
There is a great interest in Ukraine
in the American capital. Alongside Obama’s prayer breakfast, Washington hosts a
separate event called the Ukrainain prayer breakfast. And the mood during that
event was very clear: Ukraine needs to act to get its freedom back. And this is
the goal, which can be achieved through a reset in the opposition – and its
leadership.
Ostap
Semerak is a former opposition member of parliament.
