Ten years of work on behalf of Ukraine: notable highlights
by Bohdan Hawrylyshyn
CONCLUSION
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski is well-known and much admired in Ukraine, and rightly so. One of his initiatives six years ago was to create the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee. Its purpose was and is to improve relations between Ukraine and the U.S., but also with other important Western countries. The committee started with very prestigious members on the American side: Henry Kissinger, Gen. Gavin, former head of NATO; Frank Carlucci, former secretary of defense; George Soros; and several heads of large American-based multi-nationals.
For several years I was responsible for the committee's Ukrainian side, using the secretariat of the Council of Advisors to monitor the activity of the working groups in Ukraine and help prepare meetings, which took place alternately in the U.S. and Ukraine. The composition on the Ukrainian side changed often, because unlike the United States, we did not have many former statesmen with significant influence in Ukraine, as Messrs. Brzezinski and Kissinger have in the U.S. Borys Tarasyuk, now minister of foreign affairs, was a fairly permanent member, as were Anton Buteiko, Roman Shpek and Volodymyr Horbulin. We had others, who joined us for one or two meetings, like Viktor Pynzenyk, Volodymyr Vasylenko, Yevhen Marchuk and Leonid Kravchuk.
The meetings typically lasted a day and a half, with presentations by chairmen of the working groups, discussions, preparation of the communiqué and, at the end, a press conference. The communiqués would normally consist of 10 points on one page and were distributed to key political personalities in the U.S., Ukraine and other countries. They had, I believe, a significant impact, not only on U.S.-Ukraine relations, but also on those of Ukraine with the Western world in general.
Dr. Brzezinski made high demands for our meetings in Ukraine, such as having the president, the chairman of Parliament and the prime minister meet with us at breakfast, lunch or dinner to make short statements and have an open discussion. It was difficult, but not impossible to arrange.
While some Ukrainians on the committee did not have the stature of the Americans, I was proud of my Ukrainian colleagues. I will cite but one, Mr. Tarasyuk. He was then only vice-minister of foreign affairs, but he was articulate, his logic was clear, and he argued well and with insistence for the inclusion of some points in the communiqués, but did it with a disarming smile, not creating any tension in the group.
There were some light moments in these meetings, too. After one of them in Kyiv there was a press conference with a large number of television cameras, dozens of correspondents - both Ukrainian and foreign. I chaired the conference, with Messrs. Brzezinski and Kissinger from the American side and Messrs. Shpek and Tarasyuk from the Ukrainian side. The first several questions were put to Dr. Kissinger. He answered them in a casual, occasionally slightly ironic manner. After four questions he got up and said: "If you will excuse me, I am going to a soccer game, because Dynamo Kyiv is playing and it is a great team. Dr. Brzezinski will be very happy to answer whatever questions you would have directed at me." Everybody laughed. Dr. Kissinger walked out and later joined us for dinner, together with former Prime Minister Vitalii Masol, also a soccer fan.
Advisor to one president, campaigning for another?
As election day July 24, 1994, approached, many people still thought the presidential elections would not take place and, if they did, that Mr. Kravchuk, who had the "party of power" and the media behind him, would definitely win. I was still his advisor at that time. Some six weeks before the elections, I decided to see his main opponent, Leonid Danylovych Kuchma, whom I had known even before he became prime minister. I wanted to hear what he would do if he were elected.
We had a private meeting with no one else in attendance. I questioned him particularly about relations with Russia and why he was promising to introduce Russian as a second official language. I agreed with him that it was vital for Ukraine to have normal trade relations with Russia, but based on commercial rather than political rationale. He was somewhat evasive on the question of the Russian language, but was not defending the idea with much conviction. I walked away with the conviction that Mr. Kuchma had no intention of transforming Ukraine into a colony of Russia or integrating Ukraine fully into the CIS.
Several weeks later, just before the first round of presidential elections, I learned that there were posters plastered all over Kyiv, proclaiming: "Leonid Kuchma: the only politician in Ukraine who understands its tragic situation, but knows the road to salvation - Bohdan Hawrylyshyn, professor, advisor to the president of Ukraine, Switzerland." I was puzzled and shocked. Upon reflection, I suspected that the campaign manager for President Kuchma, who was aware of my private meeting with him, was probably responsible for the bluff. I quickly sent a letter to President Kuchma and Ukrainian television, saying that I was not campaigning for any presidential candidate and at any rate it would be very odd on my part to be the advisor to one president and campaigning for another.
Some 10 days after the second round of elections, I had another private meeting with the new president. Mr. Kuchma apologized for the posters and asked me if I would be an "emissary for understanding and unity with western Ukraine," which had not voted for him. I agreed on the condition that I would not have any official status with the president, since I could speak to people in western Ukraine on this issue only in my personal capacity if I was to be credible. Shortly afterwards I did have a meeting with the residents of Lviv at the Zankovetska Theater, a meeting that was broadcast live on regional television. Western Ukraine did subsequently shift its support for President Kuchma, but clearly more because of his subsequent actions than my intervention.
Smooth transition
The second round of the elections mentioned above ended on Sunday, July 10. On Monday, July 11, at 4 p.m. the Presidium of the Parliament met with the head of the Central Election Committee, Ivan Yemets, an invited guest. The chairman of the Presidium, Oleksander Moroz, asked him about the election results. Mr. Yemets stated the number of votes for Mr. Kuchma and the number for Mr. Kravchuk, and announced that Leonid Kuchma would be Ukraine's next president. He cautioned, however, that he would not announce the official results until Thursday, when he would have protocols from all of the 30-odd thousand election stations. Chairman Moroz then asked the Presidium members if there were any questions. Nobody raised any, or made any comments. Mr. Moroz then suggested we move on to the next point in the agenda.
I was stunned. This non-event was yet another great milestone in Ukraine's march to democracy. The elections that many had said would not take place, did take place; the candidate who should have won lost and nobody was making any fuss about it. It was equally impressive when three days later official results were announced, the incumbent president and the newly elected one met, shook hands, had a brief chat, and the new president was in power. Being witness to the two events was clearly among the high points in my experiences in Ukraine.
Push for reforms
President Kravchuk did a great job in consolidating the political independence of Ukraine, but the state of economy had deteriorated rapidly. President Kuchma made it his priority to do something on the economic front. Thus, another program of reforms was prepared in the summer of 1994 - this time a serious one. Chief Economic Advisor Halchynsky was in charge of drafting the document. I saw the drafts, made some comments and then listened with a lot of satisfaction when President Kuchma presented the program to the Parliament on October 11, 1994. The program was not perfect, but it was fairly bold. There was new ground for hope.
1996: great summer, failed autumn
In the three summer months of 1996 more was accomplished than in the previous three years. At the end of June the Constitution was adopted. By mid-August inflation was finally down to a respectable level. On September 2 the hryvnia was introduced with great success. Nobody was hurt in the process, everybody could exchange whatever amount they had in karbovantsi and, most important, the hryvnia held its value vis-à-vis the dollar for a year and a half, while during that period one of the strongest currencies in the world, the Swiss franc, had lost 25 percent vis-à-vis the dollar.
This should have been the new take-off for the transformation of the Ukrainian economy, which, after the presentation of the reform program in autumn 1994, had faded out. It was not to be. Somewhat later in the autumn the budget was presented for 1997, based on a new law on taxation which had not yet been adopted. There was a desperate need for a new law, and the proposed one was rather sound. It should have been obvious, though, that it was unconstitutional to accept the budget on the basis of a non-existent law. The debate on the budget dragged out, and it was finally adopted in late June 1997. Whatever momentum there existed in the summer 1996 was lost and the country was set back by a couple of years.
Helping to create a reform team
In the spring of 1997, a few weeks after he was appointed vice prime minister in charge of the "economic block," Serhii Tyhypko invited me to a meeting. He was refreshingly candid. He said that he had made enough money as a banker, consequently he would not have to take any bribes. Secondly, he said he knew how to run a bank, but needed help to learn how to work in the government. Thirdly, he said he would not accomplish much, unless there could be a team of people committed to reforms. His question to me: Could you help in forming such a team?
The International Center for Policy Studies, which I chair with Vira Nanivska as its director, with the blessing of Mr. Tyhypko organized a workshop over a holiday weekend on May 2-3. Fifteen top-rank people with direct responsibilities for some aspects of economic policy, among whom Viktor Suslov, chairman of a key committee in the Parliament; Ihor Mitiukov, minister of finance, Viktor Yuschenko, chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine; and Yurii Yekhanurov, head of the State Property Fund; were convened.
We split the participants into three groups, they elected their rapporteurs and chairmen, and debated the first question: What has already been accomplished in economic reform? Groups came back, the results were fed into a computer and projected on a screen. In the plenary debate the whole group agreed on a common list of accomplishments.
The next round of group discussions was: What remains to be done over the long term? The procedure was repeated. The last round focused on what needed to be done during the coming nine months. After the presentation of these final results, Mr. Tyhypko assumed the leadership role and pressed for somebody from the group to take on the responsibility for a task to be accomplished and making sure that there would be a buddy for him. Since passing of the budget was an urgent task, Mr. Suslov agreed to be the champion for that cause and Mitiukov was assigned as his "buddy" in the process. For each of the key remaining tasks an action team was formed in a similar fashion.
It was really thrilling to chair the above process and see how easily one could introduce some sound management and sound methodology into the work of our different branches of government. The results, alas, were not quite so thrilling. While real consensus had developed in that particular group, it was not enough. There were, after all, the Parliament, the presidential administration and the Cabinet of Ministers which did not go through the same learning process and did not develop a consensus. Mr. Tyhypko, who showed much promise, was quickly loaded up with important responsibilities, i.e., chairmanship of three interministerial commissions: economic reforms, agricultural reforms and administrative reforms. The power that he was given, however, was certainly nowhere nearly commensurate with his responsibilities.
Ukraine celebrates
Ukraine is a country of paradoxes, and one of them is that in the most difficult periods it can celebrate on a grand scale and with great gusto. 1998 was a year of anniversaries. On August 23 there was the festive independence anniversary meeting followed by a fantastic concert at the Ukraina Palace of Culture.
The following day, on the seventh anniversary of independence, for the first time there was a military parade, for which the main boulevard in Kyiv, the Khreschatyk, had been rebuilt in an amazingly short two months, whereas in very efficient Western countries similar projects would have taken years to complete.
On September 17, also at the Ukraina Palace of Culture, the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute celebrated the 100th anniversary of its creation with by nearly 4,000 people in attendance. It was good to hear about all the world-renowned scientists and engineers who were professors or graduates of the institute (now university) and again, a great concert and reception for a few hundred people were held.
September 20 was the culmination of the celebration of 1,100th anniversary of the foundation of Halych, which was the seat of a Ukrainian kingdom for a short time. I traveled with a group of people with President Kuchma on his plane to Ivano-Frankivsk, and then by car to Halych. There was a wonderful presentation of different periods of Ukraine's history, a huge combined choir, good speeches and a particularly passionate and eloquent one by Dmytro Pavlychko. We rushed back to Ivano-Frankivsk for an official gathering at the theater, followed by yet another wonderful concert with very diverse performers of high artistic quality. (The song performed by Vasyl Zinkevych, "Den nad Ukrainoyu," was particularly moving).
On October 27-29 the 125th anniversary of the creation of the Shevchenko Scientific Society was celebrated in Lviv, the birthplace of the society, with some first-class lectures, debates and another celebration at the opera house with more ceremonial speeches, awards, followed by a wonderful concert with yet another set of choirs, orchestras and performers.
December 2 was the 80th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which was enhanced by the coinciding 80th birthday of its president (for the last 36 years), Borys Yevhenovych Paton. The main event took place again at the Ukraina Palace of Culture with nearly 100 people sitting in the presidium on the stage and 4,000 in the audience. Speeches were given by President Kuchma, NANU President Paton, Verkhovna Rada Chairman Oleksander Tkachenko, Kyiv Mayor Oleksander Omelchenko and a representative of UNESCO. Then another top quality concert with particularly amazing young performers, a violin solo by a 10-year old accompanied by the symphonic orchestra of the Kyiv Opera, a 12-year-old singer from Mykolaiv with the same accompaniment who was joined for the finale by two opera tenors whose voices were as wonderful as those of Placido Domingo, Jose Carreras and Luciano Pavarotti.
It was hard not to be impressed by all these celebrations. They say in Ukraine that it is necessary for people to forget about the generally miserable situation of Ukraine by celebrating from time to time. There was, however, a Soviet hangover in the events, with speeches full of bravura, too many positive references to the Soviet period by Oleksander Trachenko and the introduction of the highest award of Ukraine, called "Hero of Ukraine."
Hope in the young generation
I reconciled myself with all of the recent celebrations during an open meeting on November 3, 1998, of the board of the International Center for Policy Studies. Two ambassadors, several attachés and other important people were among the invited guests. In a very refreshing manner the report on activities of the center was introduced by its director, but its substance was presented by 10 project leaders. They each talked for two minutes about their respective projects, with three overheads, four points on each - in Ukrainian on the left, English on the right. They spoke with clarity and precision about the objectives of each project, that activities that had taken place and the principal results. Some important, even crucial, things have been accomplished. The guests listened in awe. It was impressive, mainly because the average age of the leaders of the projects was about 25.
I have met many young people recently and was tremendously impressed by how much and how quickly they have learned - how readily they could measure up to the best in the world. The series of presentations at the International Center for Policy Studies was just another confirmation of this. I told the guests that there were hundreds of young people like those they had just heard around the country.
If we could remove the present administrative-political elite and hand over the governance of the country to this generation, they would probably do better. This kind of "revolution" will not, of course, take place, but in 10 years or so the younger generation will take over the country and do better. There lies Ukraine's future. I firmly believe in this, more than just in "contra spem spero"
CONCLUSION
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, March 7, 1999, No. 10, Vol. LXVII
| Home Page |