August 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton, Ukraine and other things

More

In June, I wrote about the Trump campaign and its disturbing links to Russian President Vladimir Putin and disgraced Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Since then, lots of other articles have appeared on the same topic: “Putin’s Puppet,” Slate; “Hillary Clinton is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” The Atlantic; “Trump Campaign Guts GOP anti-Russia Stance on Ukraine,” The Washington Post; “Is Donald Trump Working for Russia,” New York Magazine; “Why Russia is Rejoicing Over Trump,” Politico; “Donald Trump is Selling Out and Sucking up to Putin,” Daily Beast; and so on.

I also promised to write about Hillary Clinton and Ukraine. I first met Ms. Clinton in 1996 at a White House conference she organized for the 10th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear catastrophe. Environmental and ethnic leaders from both parties attended, but it was a decidedly Ukrainian-oriented event, and not just a one-time event for the first lady. Helping Chornobyl victims was one of her signature projects, for which the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund in 1999 recognized her with its Lifetime Humanitarian Achievement Award.

In 2000 Hillary was elected senator from New York with its large Ukrainian American constituency. She delivered, recognizing the Holodomor as genocide; supporting Ukraine’s membership in the World Trade Organization; laying the legislative groundwork for Ukraine’s membership in NATO at some point.

Based on her record, you can argue that no candidate for president has been stronger on Ukraine than Hillary Clinton. And why? Just as Putin allies like Paul Manafort and Carter Page influence Donald J. Trump, Ms. Clinton takes advice from friends of Ukraine, particularly Melanne Verveer. A friend of the Clintons from their college days, Ms. Verveer grew up in Pennsylvania’s Anthracite region, attended Ukrainian school, etc., and then, as the first lady’s chief of staff, accompanied her and the president on their various trips to Ukraine. (Melanne and I have been friends since the 1980s when she worked for Toledo Rep. Marcy Kaptur and I was with Cleveland Rep. Mary Rose Oakar.)

Back to Hillary. As secretary of state, Ms. Clinton recommitted to Ukraine, both on overall policy and with small, but significant matters. Consider this: in May 2010, soon after Victor Yanukovych became president, an officer from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) confronted the Rev. Dr. Borys Gudziak – then rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) – warning that he would face criminal charges should UCU students participate in demonstrations. The agent presented Father Gudziak with a document, and demanded he read and then sign it to acknowledge its validity and return it for the SBU files.

Father Gudziak, now bishop in Paris, is one tough guy. He refused to read the document and ordered the agent to leave before going to his computer to e-mail the world about Mr. Yanukovych’s Soviet-style tactics.

Six weeks later, Secretary Clinton came to Kyiv to meet Ukraine’s new president. But first, she staged a very public meeting at the U.S. Embassy with Father Gudziak. Only then, having sent a message, did the secretary meet with President Yanukovych. A few days later, SBU Chief Valerii Khoroshkovskyi flew to Lviv to apologize to Father Gudziak.

Secretaries of state and presidents, of course, also deal with the big picture. Between 1914 and 1945, there were two world wars and the dictatorships of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao and a dozen other tyrants. Tens of millions were killed, including untold numbers of Ukrainians whose territory was a perennial battlefield. Nor did two oceans spare the U.S. Sucked into both world wars, hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed; trillions of dollars were expended.

At the end of World War II and looking back at global catastrophe, wise leaders in the U.S. and Europe created military, political and economic institutions to keep the peace and provide prosperity. And it’s worked.

Now, the legacy of European peace is threatened like never before. And Ukraine is at the center. Fed up with corruption, Ukrainians in 2013-2014 massively voted with their feet and hearts at the Maidan to reject Russia and join Europe, sparking Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea and “hybrid war” in the Donbas. You can argue whether the anti-Russian sanctions and aid to Ukraine have been enough. Indeed, Hillary, having left the administration before the Maidan, did just that. In 2014, she condemned Mr. Putin’s aggression as a 21st century version of Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and called for more financing, military training and equipment for Ukraine. Many criticized her for the Hitler analogy, but she’s also one tough person and stood her ground. Now, more than two years into the crisis, it’s essential that the U.S., the European Union and NATO hold together. I’m confident they will if Hillary becomes president. You can’t say the same about a Trump presidency.

It’s no exaggeration to state that the future of Europe and the post-World War II peace are at stake in this election. Two months ago, Great Britain, to Mr. Putin’s delight, voted to leave the EU in the so-called “Brexit.” Mr. Trump at his golf course in Scotland exulted, gloating that he’d be making more money as a result.

Then, during the GOP convention Mr. Trump essentially disavowed America’s commitment to NATO’s mutual defense (Article 5), all but giving Russia a green light to annex the Baltic states should he become president. Hillary and nearly every responsible leader of both parties condemned that stance: support for NATO is a geopolitical no-brainer – only not so for Mr. Trump.

Prominent Republicans have said they will be voting for Hillary: George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft; George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage (my boss when I worked for Sen. Bob Dole in 1978); New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; and others.

I’m a Democrat. Supporting the candidate of my party in past elections, I’ve won some and lost some. In either case, I felt the country would be in responsible hands even if I didn’t agree with all the policies. I don’t feel that way this time. Nor do a lot of others. So to my Republican friends: be assured, it’s not only okay to vote for the Democratic candidate this time, it’s mandatory.

Comments are closed.