FOR THE RECORD: Foreign Affairs Minister Borys Tarasyuk speaks in D.C.

Following is the text of a speech delivered by Foreign Affairs Minister Borys Tarasyuk of Ukraine at the International Republican Institute's luncheon reception at the Madison Hotel and at the Cloyd Heck Marvin Center of George Washington University in Washington on March 10. (Minister Tarasyuk's presentations at the two events contained the major themes and points found in the text below, which was obtained by Action Ukraine Report from an assistant to the foreign minister, Myroslava Shcherbatiuk. The text here is reprinted from Action Ukraine Report, but has been edited for clarity.)

It is my great honor to be the first Ukrainian official to visit the United States after the election of the new President Viktor Yushchenko and appointment of the new government.

I guess that you expect me to share my thoughts about the Ukrainian revolution and which direction my country is taking after the political miracle we have witnessed through November and December last year.

Being an insider and participant of this "miracle," I would like to briefly comment on its immediate reasons and ensuing consequences, and then I shall move to Ukraine's perspectives.

The first and foremost reason of the revolution: the Ukrainian people have proved to be better and stronger than their government. The people stood up, not for a piece of bread, but in defense of their dignity and political will.

The people had the courage to confront gun muzzles, because they perceived democracy not as an empty shell but a profound personal aspiration.

The second reason is that the middle class has sprouted in Ukraine. Not only workers, but also the clerk community, students and small business owners rose up against injustice.

Ukraine as a nation refused to tolerate oligarchy - when some individuals controlling the economy are in collaboration with other individuals controlling politics. A so called "oligarchic economy" might quite well fit a "quasi-democracy." However, for Ukraine "quasi-democracy" was not enough.

The third reason is that degradation of the former Ukrainian government had reached its highest peak. The dirty wave of murders, harassment, corruption, suppression of mass media flooded Ukraine.

The murder of the independent journalist Heorhii Gongadze in 2000 revealed that the government was incurably sick. When in 2004 Viktor Yushchenko barely escaped death by poisoning, this was a sign that cynicism and cruelty knew no bounds. The government crossed the line and as a result was punished by its people, thereby sending a warning to all existing tyrannies.

The fourth reason is that after long years of being devoid of true moral leadership, Ukraine had a strong leader - Viktor Yushchenko, a person of noble ideals, adamant principles and deep belief.

For him the presidential campaign turned out to be like nine circles of Dante's inferno, for his life, family and relatives were put at stake. As Viktor Yushchenko succeeded to get safely through the circles, instant courage imbued millions of Ukrainians. His valor and fortitude gave him the credentials to be a moral leader of the nation for the years to come.

Was Europe ready to meet a new Ukraine? I doubt that. As a diplomat and politician I can observe that the Orange Revolution has instilled Europe with new dynamics while coming for many as a surprise.

After many years of being considered an eternal "ugly duckling" in Europe, Ukraine has suddenly emerged as an important actor in the political process.

Without being either an EU or NATO member, Ukraine has invoked in Europe a slightly forgotten feeling - the feeling of the wind of change. The unanticipated yet peaceful revolution next door to the EU has reminded that this wind still blows, although sometimes not from the windows of headquarters in Brussels.

Let us acknowledge that the year of 2004 turned out to be a real disaster for political scientists specializing in Ukraine. This is one of those rare moments when out of 1,000 forecasts made in November last year, 999 went to the waste bin in December. The forecasts ranged from those of "the third term" of Kuchma to the "quiet falsification" Ukrainians would meekly swallow; from the separation of Western Ukraine to the bloody suppression of the resistance akin to the Tiananmen massacre in 1989.

However, no one could predict that the Ukrainian revolution would become, as the Washington Post pithily pointed out, "something in between the demise of the Berlin Wall and the Woodstock festival." No one could predict that after widescale falsification the outcome of the election would be decided not only on the barricades, but also in the Supreme Court that, moreover, would take the side of justice and rule a re-voting.

Why did Ukrainian events unexpectedly puzzle the brightest minds in Europe and the world? My answer is that the brightest minds underestimated Ukrainians as a nation. It was a case when all attention was focused on politics but not on the people.

The decorations on the political stage had not changed for years. Ukraine was a corrupt post-Soviet country that liked to play EU and NATO against Russia for quite a long time. The country was ruled by the old Soviet nomenklatura repainted as nationalists.

Except for a growing economy, Ukraine still gave the impression of a terra incognita and was considered in practical terms only as a possible buffer zone.

With its European aspirations, Ukraine resembled a person who craves to study at the university only because he lives on the opposite side of the street. That is what one could see "on the political scene."

However, the most important events were developing "behind the curtains," where a new European nation was growing - beautiful, strong, civilized even in its rage.

I recall the words attributed to the Orange Revolution by the former German Minister of Defense Volker Ruhe who said: watching the TV broadcast from Independence Square we felt that the heart of Europe was beating in Kyiv.

Ukraine's striving for freedom and justice during the revolution was as strong as that of the Poles at the time of Solidarity and of the Germans at the time of the Berlin Wall's fall.

The stereotypes of some European politicians about why Ukraine "does not belong to Europe in terms of civilization and culture," vanished in a matter of days. All references that Ukraine had not lived through the age of Enlightenment and bourgeois revolutions and, therefore, was not ready to accept modern democracy proved to be inconsistent. The assertions that psychologically Ukraine is closer to Asian despotic regimes rather than European liberal system lost any arguments.

Ukraine illustrated the belief of President George Bush that deep inside every person lives a natural desire to be free.

However, here comes the ever-lasting dilemma of big politics: how to marry personal convictions and geopolitical calculations.

Ukraine has been transformed from a European outsider to the European moral leader. But it hasn't alleviated the burden of international strategists, particularly those who are shaping European integration. It is easy to decide the fate of an "ugly duckling." However it is difficult to do this if the "duckling" comes to be a prodigy, but the university has no place for him.

Some say that at international conferences attended by European officials one of the rules reads as: "say whatever you wish, but do not mention Ukraine."

Why is this so? Because the new official position toward Ukraine is still in the fetal stage. It is clear in the case of the EU, since too many voices had to be integrated in what would later become the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy.

It is clear that global politics is a "big chessboard" where Ukraine is still seeking its place. But the point is not the game. The point is freedom and justice that are equally shared, for instance, by Ukrainians and Americans.

It is about a nation that has overthrown tyranny almost at the same time when the U.S. president spoke about it as he took the oath for his second term in office. I believe that this fact turns the Ukrainian nation into a natural partner of the United States as a recognized global democratic leader. Let me remind you that U.S. President George W. Bush equated Viktor Yushchenko and his role in Ukraine's history with that of George Washington.

Developments in Ukraine revealed not only the intensity of the human aspiration for freedom. They also exposed how some people could cynically resort to indiscriminate tools to suppress this aspiration.

While America was watching the revolution with astonishment and admiration, the former administration in Ukraine concocted a myth that this revolution was brought from American shores. Absurd as this myth may look, it nevertheless captured many minds.

That brings me to a few observations. Modern democracy indeed traces its roots to the United States. However, to say that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are fathers of the Orange Revolution would be some exaggeration.

It is conventional wisdom that the United States, being a global player and democratic leader, is important for any democracy in the world. However, this does not mean automatically that developments in Ukraine were masterminded by Washington.

What was America for us in the Ukrainian opposition? It was an ideological partner, a guarantor that the democratic world would not turn a blind eye toward the flagrant violation of basic human rights.

American idealists like John McCain helped the world to keep the Ukrainian elections in close focus, while American pragmatics like Richard Lugar stepped in resolutely to defend democracy in Ukraine. They were not silent when the government attempted to rig the elections, and they did not make any concessions behind the Ukrainian people's backs.

As the Ukrainian revolution was unfolding, the United States took a posture innate to the world democratic leader. So, for this - and not for an imaginary "financing of the revolution" - I wish to extend my appreciation.

Ukraine invites the United States to a strategic partnership.

Democracy, justice and faith bind Ukrainians and Americans. We share common goals: global promotion of democracy, the fight against terrorism, the strengthening of European and trans-Atlantic security and ties. We actually have no interests that conflict. Our views of the future of Europe are converging. Our economic relations could be harmoniously intertwined.

I can see many arguments in favor of the elevation of our relations to a strategic partnership. No argument against this idea is in sight. I see the future of our relations as "partnership for democracy." This is not an alliance against a third party. This is an alliance for the promotion of high human values that have become victorious for Ukraine in December 2004.

Ukraine presented the world with an attractive alternative and a viable concept of "soft power," which could be more instrumental in making this world a better place to live.

This should be the ideology to underpin our relations. As to its mechanism, it is obvious that we have to resume dialogue on the highest political level. The forthcoming visit of Viktor Yushchenko to the U.S. will be such a mechanism.

I see bright prospects for development of our parliament-to-parliament cooperation. As a former member of the Ukrainian legislature, I am aware of the crucial role played by the legislative branches in our nations. I am in favor of stronger relations between the Rada and Congress.

American policy resides in the White House, but it is born on Capitol Hill. Therefore, it is twice as pleasant for me that the U.S. Congress has turned into the driving force of the Ukrainian American partnership.

The most encouraging words in support of democracy emanated from the Congress. The Congress sent unequivocal warning messages to those who wanted to subvert democracy. We find the most enthusiastic and influential friends in the Congress now when it is high time to make steps toward each other.

To clear the hurdles that have hampered the development of our relations in the past years is an important precondition for our successful relations. The Ukrainian government is working to ensure that every investor could feel confident in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Parliament is taking up the adoption of intellectual property protection legislation as the highest priority.

We are aware of the [issue of] restitution of religious communities' property, and my country will resolve this matter in a civilized and consistent manner. Manifestations of anti-Semitism, racism and other ideologies of hatred are very rare in Ukraine.

On the whole, it is high time to adopt a new and overarching agenda for relations between Ukraine and the United States. I am visiting Washington to declare this aspiration of my nation and to share my views on how to bring it into life. I believe that our ideas find response and support, so when the president of Ukraine comes to Washington these ideas will be blessed on the highest political level.

Touching upon the new agenda, I cannot but expound the most pressing issues that, to our mind, could be resolved already now.

It is with satisfaction that I observe an increasing number of politicians in Washington who support the graduation of Ukraine from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the establishment of normal trade relations and accession to the WTO. I think it is beyond a doubt that application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Ukraine is to be reconsidered. For modern Ukraine to be an object of this legislation is like wearing the clothes of a dead person notorious for his dreadful character.

Normal trade relations are as equally an indispensable part of partnership as are normal political relations.

The spirit of the new Ukrainian government is to convert a "political miracle" into an "economic miracle." "It's the economy, stupid" reflected [the ideas of] Bill Clinton during the presidential elections in 1996. However humorous this principle may sound, it is perhaps still universal.

In the modern world the success of the nation is measured not in ideological slogans, but economic indicators. Therefore, whoever wishes success to Ukrainian democracy should think in economic terms.

The first question that comes to my mind in this regard is the accession of Ukraine to the WTO. The president of Ukraine listed it among the priority issues for this year.

Speaking about precious time, I would like to briefly reflect on yet another aspect of Ukrainian-American relations. Those closely watching relations between Ukraine and the U.S. can confirm that we have already heard abundant rhetoric on partnership. That was 10 years ago, when independent Ukraine voluntarily renounced its nuclear arsenal and was celebrated in the United States for this step.

What happened next was an abysmal disappointment both for the United States and democratic pro-European forces in Ukraine. In the '90s we fumbled many opportunities, but that lesson did not pass unnoticed. The new Ukrainian government believes that in modern politics the main virtue is not simply to say glibly what you are expected to say, but honesty and consistency.

For instance, we do not keep secret the fact that Ukraine is going to withdraw its troops from Iraq. This was the demand of Ukrainian voters. This is the promise of the Ukrainian president to his people. However, there are many aspects that we are constantly keeping in focus.

Ukraine will remain a partner of the U.S. in the global war against terrorism. Ukraine consistently supports U.S. efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and other types of the weapons of mass destruction.

We shall not take any step that might let down the Iraqi people and our brothers in arms in Iraq - the United States and Poland, who are Ukraine's most consistent Western allies. We shall do our best to ensure that there will be no vacuum of security after the withdrawal. We shall substitute a military component with our diversified presence in Iraq.

The new wind coming from Ukraine is bringing changes to Europe. At present, two parts of one whole have to be married. These are (1) the European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and (2) the non-readiness of the European Union and NATO to meet them.

We regard European and Euro-Atlantic integration not as a political fetish. We do not consider it a ticket to an elite club that would bring a panacea for everything.

We know that the Orange Revolution has strengthened our convictions that only we could be the masters of our prosperity and democracy.

Under such circumstances the EU and NATO are crucial for us because of the following considerations. First, in the modern world these two organizations are equated with Europe and "Western civilization" - the one Vaclav Havel so well described in the following words back in 1991:

"Speaking about us being a part of the West, we mean being a part of a certain civilization, a certain political culture, certain spiritual values and universal principles. We mean a civilization, culture and values that we embrace."

That was said by the leader of the Czech Republic - a nation that had long been an integral part of European civilization and then for a couple of decades was parted from it.

The alienation of Ukraine from Europe lasted much longer. However, Ukrainian roots are traced to European civilization.

Where could we place Kyiv Rus' - one of the biggest European nations in the times of Charlemagne? Could we forget Prince Yaroslav the Wise, who was father-in-law for a large part of Europe because the kings of Hungary, France and Norway married his daughters? Could we ever erase from European history his daughter Anna, who was the queen of France?

Therefore, for Ukraine, European and Euro-Atlantic integration is a historical rather than a political move.

Second, European and Euro-Atlantic integration will mean final recognition of Ukraine as a European nation. It ensures that Ukraine will no longer be considered as a former colony.

Third, Ukraine in the EU and NATO will be a showcase of success in political and economic terms.

In this regard I would like to address American political pundits. I know that recently it has become fashionable to mention Ukraine as a "Eurasian country." It suffices to look at the map to learn that this is geographically wrong. It is enough to look into a textbook to learn that this is historically wrong. In December it was enough to watch CNN Headline News to realize that this is politically incorrect.

So, forget about the Eurasian myth. forget about the European "belt of poverty." Forget about "buffer zones." Europe keeps growing, while the Orange Revolution has starkly recalled this process, and given it a powerful impetus.

When I reflected upon attractive examples that Ukraine found in the post-war Western Europe and Poland of the 1990s, the United States was explicitly and implicitly present in both cases. Supporting democracy in Europe has become a historical tradition for your great nation.

The U.S. contribution to post-war European history is so significant that your nation might be regarded as European, as well as Asian and African. Some criticize America for its "omnipresence." But millions of people have grounds to look at the United States with admiration and gratitude.

One American writer joked that should an advertising slogan be invented for the U.S. he would suggest: "Twenty million illegal immigrants cannot be wrong!"

To put it more seriously, America is one of the places on the planet where the word "justice" is not a hollow promise. We may agree or disagree with how Americans understand justice, but we cannot doubt your sincerity.

Now it would be just and fair to support Ukraine - a nation that has overthrown tyranny and is building its statehood on the same principals as America does, a nation that can and should be a strategic partner of the United States in the coming decades.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, April 3, 2005, No. 14, Vol. LXXIII

| Home Page |