Editor’s Note: The following is an interview on Dec. 3 by Kyiv Post columnist Sergii Leshchenko, the former Ukrainian member of parliament, with Francis Fukuyama, director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University in California. Fukuyama is among America’s most influential political scientists and writers.
Kyiv Post: The main issue is impeachment. What is your understanding of the situation — how far the impeachment inquiry can go and what will be the legal result of the inquiry?
Francis Fukuyama: Legal outcome has not been in question from the beginning. There are two stages. There’s impeachment, the equivalent of an indictment by a prosecutor, that’s done in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Democrats. Then there’s actually a trial, which takes place by the Senate, controlled by the Republicans.
KP: It doesn’t look like any Republicans will turn against Trump and he will probably be acquitted.
FF: The Democrats have put this on a fast track because they don’t want this to interfere with the election. They will wrap up the impeachment part by January. And I don’t think it will take longer. The trial in the Senate likely will be done by the end of January. The legal outcome is not important. What matters is the effect this will have on the presidential election in 2020. When it happened last time under Richard Nixon, the country turned against the president, even though he had been elected by an overwhelming majority. Our country, unfortunately, is so polarized, the two sides, the Republican and Democrats, are so fixed in their opinions, it’s as if new facts don’t matter, especially on the Republican side. This is the most disturbing part of these proceedings. The hearings have turned up, in my opinion, incontrovertible evidence that President Trump deliberately withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to further his own electoral prospects. That’s an impeachable offense. Republicans keep repeating a shifting series of defenses. There’s nothing released of a factual nature that will change people’s convictions. Democrats will continue to oppose Trump and Republicans will continue to support him.
Sergii Leshchenko, a Kyiv Post columnist and former Ukrainian lawmaker (L), interviews author and political scientist Francis Fukuyama at Stanford University in California on Dec. 3, 2019. (Courtesy)
KP: Evidence produced by diplomats and civil servants — 99 percent of them say it was a quid pro quo (that U.S. President Donald J. Trump was seeking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky). Will it have some impact on the establishment or political elite — let’s say the state service and political institutions in the U.S.?
FF: There’s lots of reports that many Republican senators are very distressed with what happened. They think Trump did something bad, but they’re so afraid of facing voters if they turn against Trump. Some say that if you had a secret vote in the Senate, you could get 20 Republicans who vote against Trump. So it’s a big problem. It will affect the outcome of the November 2020 election. If Trump is a real liability, if swing voters turn against him, more Republicans will defect. The shift won’t be in the elites. The change will actually come from the people. It’s not the core Trump supporters who will turn against him, it’s voters who could vote Democratic or could vote Republican. They still haven’t decided.
KP: Was it a mistake to launch the impeachment inquiry?
FF: We can’t know that. The feeling of many Democrats, which I agree with, is Trump’s behavior is so egregious that if you don’t try to impeach him, it sets a bad precedent. It means any future president will try to get away with the sorts of things he tried to do. I don’t think it’s hurt them so far not in any dramatic way.
KP: Should the Democratic Party find someone else not involved in this whole mess, I mean not Joseph Biden?
FF: Trump’s strategy was clear. He was most threatened by Joe Biden, that’s why he went after Biden. He would love to run against someone from the left-wing, (Elizabeth) Warren or (Bernie) Sanders, who would have a very hard time defeating Donald Trump. That leaves Biden, he’s damaged by this. His son Hunter didn’t do anything illegal, but it doesn’t look good his taking a seat on the board of Burisma, it’s the kind of influence, buying and selling, they don’t like about Washington. That’s why Democrats have been looking for another centrist candidate – Peter Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Amy Klobucher, there’s a number of possibilities. Michael Bloomberg is the latest to sign on in the race. All of these candidates have their own weaknesses. So it’s hard to predict which candidate the Democrats will nominate.
KP: What will happen to Ukraine after the impeachment inquiry is over?
FF: This is something really unfortunate. There had been a strong bipartisan consensus that most Republicans in Congress strongly supported. They thought it was our job to support Ukraine against Russia. With Trump, we weren’t certain whether he was paying attention to Ukraine; now it’s clear he disliked Ukraine from the beginning; he got a lot of views about Ukraine from talks with Vladimir Putin and reinforced by (Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor) Orban. He believes Putin and Orban more than his own intelligence community. Now that he’s come out this way, there’s a lot of conservatives who say: “I prefer Russia to Ukraine.” Tucker Carlson, a prominent host on FOX News, said this past week that he favors Russia over Ukraine. It’s totally crazy to support Russia against Ukraine. It’s totally crazy from the standpoint of American interests and American values. Unfortunately, you’re going to get a pro-Russian-wing of the Republican party. That’s not good.
KP: Will that remain after Trump leaves the presidency?
FF: If he is repudiated in the election, everything he stands for will be regarded as toxic. Hopefully, things will switch back at that point. There’s a significant number of conservatives who like Putin; who generally believe they are closer to Putin than they are to American liberals because Russia is ‘a Christian country’ trying to uphold traditional values. Putin made a big issue of gay rights. They feel closer to Putin despite his invasion of Ukraine and murdering journalists and all the other things he’s done, because of all these cultural issues. That’s going to remain regardless of the elections and what happens in US-Ukraine relations.
KP: What did you personally study about America in the last year?
FF: The biggest issue is how it is that the United States could have elected someone like Donald Trump. Before 2016, nobody thought this would be remotely possible. He has a cult. It’s like he’s a religious leader who will lead a cult of followers.
KP: Twitter. Trump has millions of retweets. Are these trolls or bots, or real people?
FF: They are American citizens. His core support base is 30-35 percent of the American electorate. The people who like him love him. If you listen to evangelical leaders, he’s like the second messiah sent to save the United States, with an existential fight for survival under attack by people on the left. But again, the bottom line for Ukraine is not good. Ukraine had been traditionally supported by the establishment because it was struggling to be a democracy and struggling against corruption in a way that Russia was not.
KP: Maybe it’s time for Ukraine to be an adult country, not to look back and see if there is an elder partner behind our back; to govern independently without any support?
FF: It’s nice to think, but if Ukraine is not supported by Europe or the United States, it’s going to be hard to maintain its independence. That relationship remains strong. I don’t want to overstate the shift in the United States. I think it’s still the case there is a bipartisan core of people that want military aid to continue to flow and its anti-corruption efforts and so forth. The switch that has occurred at one spectrum of the United States is not good, but you still have a majority that continues to be supportive of Ukraine. This is an argument going on in Europe. Emmanuel Macron recently gave an interview to the Economist that Europe has to develop its own military capability independent of the United States.
KP: France was very critical of NATO.
FF: They were always a part of NATO and participated in NATO activities. The fight that is going on between Germany and France about the importance of NATO is really an important one. I think that although Germany has been pursuing Nord Stream II and other policies not good for Ukraine, on the value issue, Angela Merkel has been very clear: between Russia and Ukraine there’s no question that Europe is going to support Ukraine. They understand this is a struggle over values whereas France is reverting to a Gaullist position of ‘we have to deal with everyone, regardless of what their values are.’
KP: What is your advice for Ukraine on how to leave from this situation with the smallest damage?
FF: The main issue is to try to avoid getting sucked any further into American politics. That’s the most damaging thing that happened. It’s not Ukraine’s fault this happened. Zelensky’s got no choice. He cannot seem to be anti-Trump. He cannot seem to be supportive of Trump. Either position is going to be disastrous.
KP: How has he done so far?
FF: He’s done a good job. I think that the interview he gave recently, although Trump was trying to use this as a vindication of his position, I don’t think at this particular juncture, any Ukrainian president can come out as critical of Donald Trump; it’s just too dangerous for Ukraine, so I think he’s done OK.
KP: How to leave the situation with the smallest damage?
FF: In presidential politics, it’s very important for Ukrainians not to take sides. It’s very important to cultivate members of Congress, including a substantial number of Republicans who continue to be supporters and other elites in the United States who follow foreign policy. It’s important to do what you’re doing. Be on the record, making clear what happened and who is really corrupt in Ukraine and who isn’t.
KP: Will this situation make global politics less corrupt or have the opposite result – that you can do what you want with no consequences? You can achieve as much as you want without barriers or moral frames?
FF: It depends on the national election in 2020. If trump is repudiated, it will be a blow in favor in the rule of law. If he’s re-elected, I think it will be disastrous.
KP: It depends on the election results, for today there is no way for Ukraine to secure ourselves from these results.
FF: Any result will have an impact on Ukraine. There’s not much Ukrainians can do. You are going to have to lie low and wait for events to unfold.
