Reports & Papers
from
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ten Years of Ukrainian Independence
Boris Tarasyuk, former Foreign Minister of Ukraine
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Sponsored by the Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project (SDI)
November 29, 2001
Summary by Scott Canty
Boris Tarasyuk, who served as Ukraine''s Foreign Minister from 1998-2000, addressed a gathering of Belfer Center staff, students, and regional specialists on November 29, 2001 at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Noting the recent celebration of the tenth anniversary of Ukraine''s declaration of independence, Tarasyuk discussed his country''s political and economic development, as well as his view of the events of September 11 and their impact on Ukraine''s foreign relations.
Tarasyuk began by looking back to Ukraine''s declaration of independence on August 24, 1991. At that time, he noted, Ukraine faced mixed expectations. On the one hand, Ukraine was regarded as the most promising of the newly independent states, thanks to its talented workforce, well-developed industry, agricultural resources, and technical expertise. At the same time, however, Ukraine lacked some of the fundamental features of normal independent states, including a political and economic elite on which to base its new economy. It also faced several unique challenges: territorial claims from Russia and Romania; potentially destabilizing nuclear and conventional arsenals inherited from the Soviet Union; the problem of the status of the Black Sea fleet; the threat of Crimean separatism; and difficulty gaining recognition of Ukrainian independence from the United States.
Despite these challenges, Tarasyuk argued that Ukraine has achieved much, both internally and externally. After suffering through 10,000% inflation in 1993, Ukraine now boasts "the most dynamically developing economy in Europe" over the past two years. Tarasyuk cited a 6% increase in GDP and a 12% increase in industrial output in 2000, followed by estimated increases of 9% and 16% in those indicators for 2001. Ukraine also developed "from scratch" a foreign policy infrastructure; while in 1991 Ukraine''s foreign service consisted of only 100 diplomats, it now includes over 2,000 personnel working in more than 80 foreign posts. Currently, 400,000 men and women serve in the independent armed forces that Ukraine has created out of former Soviet troops. Tarasyuk noted that Ukraine has successfully addressed the question of the country''s inherited nuclear weapons, with the last nuclear warhead being sent to Russia for disassembly in the summer of 1996. By destroying its last ICBM silo earlier this month, Ukraine fulfilled its international obligations stemming from the START I treaty. Finally, despite some controversy over the final solution, Ukraine has resolved the issue of the Black Sea fleet.
Tarasyuk then spoke in greater detail about Ukraine''s foreign policy. Citing the language of NATO and the European Union, he called Ukraine "the pivotal factor of security and stability in Europe." In taking on an active peacekeeping role in the Balkans and Abkhazia, Ukraine has begun to play the role of a regional leader. From the outset, Ukraine formulated its own, unique position within the CIS and now serves as the natural leader of a group of like-minded states known by the acronym GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova). Pulling out a pocket atlas, he noted that Ukraine is listed under the heading of "Russia and Neighboring Countries," despite appearing in the center of the "Central and Eastern Europe" map. Tarasyuk expressed hope that Americans would come to know more about Ukraine and its role in the international system.
Shifting the focus of his remarks, Tarasyuk turned to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Having flown over New York the previous day, he said: "I''ve seen a bleeding wound in the center of downtown Manhattan. And this wound is a reminder for us that there is a major threat before us all, that is, international terrorism." No one, nationally or individually, can now feel immune from this threat, and this new geopolitical reality is already affecting international politics. One of the most significant changes has been a rapprochement between the United States and Russia. Both their partnership in Afghanistan and the previously unthinkable discussion of additional Russian participation in NATO councils highlight a dramatic improvement in their relationship. He also noted that the United States and its allies made it very clear that their retaliation will be focused against international terrorism, not against Islam or Muslim countries, and that this message was taken very seriously in the Arab and Muslim world. This declaration of intent was underscored by NATO''s announcement that it would not support unilateral U.S. action against Iraq. Equally noteworthy were the manner in which the United States received "unequivocal support, the world over," and the U.N. Security Council equation of the terrorist attacks with a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these geopolitical effects, the attacks also had a negative impact on the respect of human rights. Tarasyuk cited random searches of airline passengers and the U.S. debate over establishing a national ID system as examples of the more unpleasant changes following the events of September 11.
Finally, Tarasyuk noted that December 8 would be the tenth anniversary of the formation of the CIS. Ukraine, he said, had taken the only realistic position of the CIS states, one that enabled it to avoid being subsumed into a new confederation on the territory of the former Soviet Union. He argued that the CIS currently provided neither security nor economic benefits to Ukraine, especially in light of Russia''s opposition to creating a free trade zone between member states. Knowing "all the shortcomings and the very few merits," of the CIS, he said that it was "high time to dissolve it."
Discussion
Tarasyuk elaborated on his remarks during the question and answer period, as described below.
When Ukraine joined the CIS, what was its attitude - were the newly independent states coerced?
The signing of the agreement to join the CIS actually came as a shock to Ukraine''s foreign service. The agreement was signed by President Leonid Kravchuk who did so without authorization from the rest of Ukraine''s government. After years of historical struggle for independence, the President''s unilateral action seemed like a form of betrayal. When the agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian parliament on December 12, 1991, a list of formal reservations was attached, which Tarasyuk helped craft. Technically, Tarasyuk noted, Ukraine has never signed the CIS charter, and therefore is not officially a member of the CIS. But these reservations aside, the original agreement was not compulsory.
Do you see GUAAM as a better opportunity for economic development than partnership with the CIS or other newly independent states?
GUAAM does provide an alternative opportunity for the like-minded countries to be united politically, militarily, and economically. It emerged because of a joint security concern on the part of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan, who were all affected by the flank limitations of the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) treaty. Some people now attempt to portray GUAAM as a solely economic organization, but its origin was in security issues. With the failure to establish a CIS free trade zone, a GUAAM free trade zone may now be an alternative.
Is there a difference between the lessons learned by Ukraine and the U.S. after September 11, especially in light of the U.S.''s changing relationship with Russia?
September 11 had much less effect on the U.S.-Ukraine relationship than on the U.S.-Russia relationship and on geopolitics in general. However, rapprochement between Russia and the West will be beneficial to Ukraine as well. The friendlier Russia is with the West, the better for Ukraine, since Ukraine has chosen the path of integration with Euro-Atlantic international structures.
Afghanistan has been a major source of immigrants into Ukraine, and Ukraine''s border with Russia is very permeable. In 1991, there were 184 illegal immigrants in Ukraine; in 2000, there were 24,000. This presents a very serious problem for Ukraine and its relationship with Russia, and that is why it sought and received assistance from the European Union to establish more secure border controls.
The U.S.-Russian rapprochement potentially poses negative consequences for Ukraine and other CIS countries. In exchange for Russia''s cooperation in the U.S. anti-terrorist campaign, Russia may seek a freer hand to dominate the CIS. While this threat is hypothetical, it is highly realistic. Recently, however, a high-ranking administration official assured Tarasyuk that the White House was aware of this concern and would not act in a manner that would threaten the interests of CIS member states.
During the last ten years, Ukraine has experienced low levels of foreign investment and a high level of domestic capital flight. With particular reference to Ukraine''s relationship with the European Union, in what direction do you believe economic reform is going?
Foreign investment in Ukraine has indeed been very low. Over the last ten years, Poland has received ten times as much direct foreign investment as Ukraine, despite a smaller economy. This is attributable in part to a lack of real economic reform until 1995. After 1995, such reforms were discussed but relatively few were actually implemented. Political instability likely also discouraged foreign investors; perhaps the results of March''s parliamentary elections will establish a stable democratic majority and create a more welcoming environment for investment.
As to the European Union, it has not defined a clear policy towards Ukraine. Since 1993, Ukraine has declared that its ultimate objective is to become first an associate and then a full member of the EU. Last March, the European parliament decided that provided Ukraine meets the Copenhagen criteria, it might proceed towards EU membership.
Has Ukraine''s foreign policy shifted away from a course of Western integration?
The last year has seen a major domestic political upheaval in Ukraine, but the changes in Ukraine''s foreign policy can be traced back to the reelection of President Leonid Kuchma to a second term. Under conditions of domestic weakness, more concessions have been made to our partner to the east, Russia.
If we view the CIS as a transitional structure designed to allow Russians time to acclimatize to the collapse of the Soviet empire, can it be seen as more historically useful than if we view it as an economic or security arrangement?
As a transitory mechanism, there was merit to the CIS. But if one accepts this explanation for its emergence, one must also admit that this transition stage is over. The security dimension of CIS did not work; the Tashkent treaty served as a cover for Russian domination. The economic dimension also failed, once Russian opposition prevented the formation of a free trade zone between the member states.
In most of the former Soviet republics, political parties tend to be remnants from the former Communist party structures or organizations based on individual personalities. How would you assess the formation of political parties in Ukraine?
There are two types of parties in Ukraine as well: those focused on ideological platforms and those that are focused on a particular leader. We have 130 political parties, and most parties realize their marginal nature. As a result, coalitions have formed to allow parties to wield influence within the parliament. For the first time, the popularity of the Communist party is secondary to another political force, the "Our Ukraine" coalition, which currently enjoys 20-30% popularity in opinion polls.
In light of your comments regarding the potential effects of a U.S.-Russian rapprochement on smaller CIS states, what are your thoughts on recent events in Georgia? Are Russian actions legitimately fighting terrorism?
From Tarasyuk''s point of view, this will serve as a test of Western reaction to Russia''s actions. The Georgian President Shevardnadze has demonstrated a very independent foreign policy course from that of Russia, and he recently announced that Georgia was going to quit the CIS. Taking into account past Russian threats to pursue Chechen forces fleeing into Georgian territory, recent events seem to be an implementation of this threat. Georgia is now very vulnerable, and the United States has been sending messages that maintaining Georgian independence is a matter of concern.
Tarasyuk stated that he found Russia''s equation of its campaign in Chechnya with a fight against international terrorism to be strange. The current U.S. administration, he said, has been unclear in its position on this issue and has therefore given Russia a great deal of free rein.
Could you tell us something about the steps being taken to ensure the fairness of Ukraine''s upcoming parliamentary elections?
Ukraine''s democratic parties lack the financial resources and access to mass media enjoyed by oligarchic and loyalist parties, which poses a serious problem for their campaigns. They are relying on and expecting the significant involvement of international election monitors to help ensure election fairness.