But — bless my second thoughts —
revisiting the premises of the author’s argument shows an acrobatic leap
into sound bites, such as: “The Association Agreement (between the European
Union and Ukraine) is about the political future of the Ukrainian state ……. The
political future of the tens of millions of Ukrainian people should not be
dependent on the future of the single person.”. Meaning Tymoshenko.
Although recognizing that the trial and imprisonment of Tymoshenko have been politically motivated, the observations, conclusions
and implications as presented, are not entirely fair to Tymoshenko.
Particularly troubling is the suggestion that her release from jail, if it occurs,
would stir turmoil and would “split the opposition.”
What follows in that article may not be exactly character
assassination, but rather extensive quoting of Tymoshenko’s critics as someone with inflated
ambitions, “lust for power”, and her “putting of personal interests ahead of
national ones”.
Are these exaggerations (to put it mildly) helpful to making
a case for an Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine while the
Yanukovych government refuses to meet the EU’s conditions, including freedom
for Tymoshenko? Gimme a break.
First of all, the European Union is unquestionably entitled
to observe its own interests, especially in these difficult times of worldwide
economic turmoil and of its own financial austerity regime. Among such
considerations is avoidance of associations and memberships that would
enfeeble, much less help, the EU’s own standing as an economic power with its
democratic institutions and traditions.
Because of these considerations, EU membership has been
practically denied to a country such as Turkey, and an association agreement
most likely will be denied to Ukraine. The government of Viktor Yanukovych has
overstepped the reddest of red lines by jailing Yulia Tymoshenko and others
under false pretexts for political reasons.
Yes, it would be to European Union’s advantage to make
Russia smaller by having closer ties between the EU and Ukraine. But the
downside of such closer ties would be a spillover from Ukraine’s Aegean stables
of corruption and authoritarian infection into Europe’s underbelly.
There is no indication or reasonable expectation whatever
that an association agreement would help shape “the political future of the
Ukrainian state.” More likely, Ukraine’s political regime would stay very much
the same, with the Regions Party serially winning elections by hook and crook,
stuffing the ballots, and staying like an entrenched Trojan horse of traditional
Donetsk brotherhoods, showing the same well known décor.
Inability of organized opposition to dislodge the existing
yoke over Ukraine is not a proof of the shortcomings of opposition’s leading
personalities, but rather a testimony of the kind of historical baggage
weighing on the behavior and the psyche of Ukraine’s population in its various
regions.
This behavior, and not the faults of this or that opposition
leader, is the principal determinant. There was absolutely no excuse or
rationale for electing Viktor Yanukovych, with his shadowy background, as president
of Ukraine in 2010.
There is no rational explanation why Viktor Yushchenko,
despite his glaring shortcomings, was getting not more than about 5 percent
approval rating during much of his tenure as president, while President Viktor
Yanukovych, despite a struggling economy, brazen corruption, and his assault on
democratic freedoms, is still basking in impressive numbers.
Is it not because Yushchenko’s unfulfilled promises were
outweighed by recidivism of a majority with a disfigured national identity and
forbearance for predictably corrupt authoritarian rule ?
There was no
justification for blaming Tymoshenko for the impact of a worldwide
recession on Ukraine in 2009, a recession that almost broke the back of much
stronger economies.
There is no sound logic for sniping from condescending
intellectual rightists at Tymoshenko’s reputed leanings towards populism
— in a country virtually owned by the oligarchs
who are culturally remote from Ukrainian content. The setup of concentration of
the nation’s wealth in very few hands has been always totally foreign to the
ideology of all Ukrainian national liberation movements across the entire
political spectrum, from Volodymyr Vynnychenko to Dmytro Dontsov.
Today’s major parties have no ideology, except presenting
themselves as right-of-center democratic free-enterprise enthusiasts. This
facade often hides corruption and fosters skepticism and mistrust from socially
conscious Ukrainian patriots, who insist that a fundamental change must
come. On the other hand, the socialist
elite seems to be in hibernation, while the Communist party, taken over by “the
crafty Malorossy”, is an epitome of chameleonic adjustment as a de-facto subsidiary
of the ruling Regions syndicate.
Concerning Tymoshenko, her status as a woman in
Ukraine is another signpost. Who remembers the diatribe from Viktor Yanukovych
designating “a woman’s place in the
kitchen” in the closing days of the 2010 presidential campaign runoff? In the
West, such a doozy would spell an end of his political career. But not at the
Eurasian border.
Recent treatment of Tymoshenko marks a black stain on
Ukraine, even if it is the work of a government that can hardly be characterized
as Ukrainian. Was she not a living symbol of revolutionary Ukraine at the
Maidan? Didn’t the Ukrainians miserably
fail to protect her from abuse by thugs a few years later? Shamefully, this
inertness can match the failure of the French to save their Joan of Arc from
burning at the stake when she was captured by their English enemies, two years
after she led the French army to a historic victory at Orleans that saved
France and made it a nation.
Deplorable status of women in Ukraine has been recently
highlighted by bare-breast protests of the Femen group. Moralists are incensed.
But the question remains, can Ukraine do better than that? While this group shows exceptional courage and
defiance, where is the indignation of “a moral majority” at the corrupt,
criminal-tinged system that took hold of the country?
Taking refuge in compromising with the status quo, as
advocated by “Out of the Harm’s Way,” and leaving it to the oligarchs to
outsmart both Russia and the European Union is no way to define the political
future of “the tens of millions of Ukrainians.”
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
