United States Ambassador to Ukraine
John E. Herbst
European University
Kyiv, Ukraine
October 7, 2004
The future of Ukraine is a large topic of great importance to the Ukrainian people, obviously, but also to the region and to the Euro-Atlantic community, which includes the United States. This topic has particular meaning this year, the country's fourteenth year of independence and the year of its fourth presidential election. We have seen dramatic statements about the meaning of this election. Some observers suggest that this is the most important vote since the referendum on independence. Still other observers speak of the election in Manichean terms as a struggle between good and evil.
Of course, hard fought political campaigns in democracies are often given to hyperbole. Some even say that our own American election this year has witnessed some overstatement. But as one Rada deputy, from the center of the political spectrum, correctly noted at my dinner table recently, the sun will rise on the morning of November 22, the day after the run-off vote which all expect in the Ukrainian elections.
So what are we looking at in Ukraine? A titanic battle for the soul of the country or just one more presidential election in the life of a young, developing democracy? Or is it something else?
Let's start with some positives. Ukraine stands in the front ranks of the Newly Independent States in terms of economic and political reform. You all know the splendid growth rates the country has achieved over the past four years. While remaining energy dependent, Ukraine's growth rate has averaged 7.5% over this period and exceeded 12 % for the first four months of this year. This is due to a talented people, ample natural resources and excellent macroeconomic policy. I would note, however, that the excellent fiscal policy has given way to some potentially inflationary election year economics - something which is known not just in Ukraine, but also in other democracies
Civil society in Ukraine is vibrant. Freedom of speech is embedded in the law and there are media representing all points of view. There is a strong opposition - which is not seen much within the NIS - whose leader just might be elected president this fall. It seems clear that President Kuchma will step down following this election. That means that this election will feature the second peaceful presidential transfer of power in Ukraine -- an important step in the establishment of a democratic tradition.
But of course, this is not the whole of the story. Indeed, some in Ukraine would even take exception with the way that I formulated the good news. One member of the opposition, for instance, complained to me that the point of comparison for Ukraine should not be the NIS, but the countries immediately to the west, former members of the Soviet bloc that are now in NATO and the EU. Countries such as Poland and Hungary. In such company, he claims, the Ukrainian record is not pretty at all.
There is something to this. Ukraine's vibrant civil society is perhaps not quite as vibrant today as it was five or six years ago. The same may be said about the media. While media represent all points of view, the dominant media all pull in the direction of the governing parties and the media that do not are subject to pressure and even closure. Given the welter of often contradictory laws governing all aspects of life in Ukraine, people going about their affairs may well be in violation of one of them. This provides opportunities for those in power to go after their opponents.
I met with one articulate journalist from a pro-government newspaper who argued that such things are not important. Most Ukrainians, he said, don't care about things like freedom of speech or completely free elections. They want good, secure jobs, which the growing economy is providing. This is an interesting argument. I remember such arguments in favor of the Soviet way of life, which of course provided neither freedom nor prosperity, but this argument is misplaced in Ukraine just as it was misplaced in Soviet times. Even for those in Ukraine who only care about the economy, good clean government, which requires a truly open society and complete media freedom, is essential.
While macroeconomic policies have been very good, the microeconomic policies are another story. The laws concerning private property and the formation of businesses are a jumble of contradictions allowing corruption to flourish. The impact this has on the welfare of ordinary Ukrainians is easy to see. Earlier this year, the government oversaw the privatization of Kryvorizhstal, a major steel plant in eastern Ukraine. It wrote the terms of the bidding in such a way as to rule out foreign competition. The winners of the bid were two businessmen associated with the government. Their winning bid was for USD 800 million. Two foreign firms put in a bid of USD 1.65 billion. In addition, they were willing to invest USD 1.2 billion in the firm. They wanted to modernize the firm. The fact that this bid did not win, that it went to two privileged businessmen meant that the Ukrainian Government received USD 700 million less than it would have. It also means that the steel works did not receive USD 1.2 billion in investment. Imagine how many jobs for Ukrainian steelworkers will not be created and how many jobs in related industries will not be created because the foreign bid was not accepted.
Of course, you did not read about these facts in your major media, because your major media didn't want to cover those stories. And the media that do cover those stories is subject to harassment.
Which brings us to the elections. Let me first repeat the obvious: the only stake the United States has in these elections is in the electoral process. Not in any candidate. We would like to see a free and fair election in Ukraine. In other words, our only stake is that the Ukrainian people choose their next leader. That choice should not be influenced by government officials who limit access to information, who hinder opposition political activities or, worse, play games with the actual electoral results.
How is the campaign going? The answer is it is not going very well. While most parties in Ukraine pay lip service to the idea of a free and fair competition, the reality is sadly different. A variety of obstacles have been placed in the way of the opposition parties. These have begun to raise doubts about whether the elections can be considered truly free and fair. As you are well acquainted with the situation here, I will only list a few of them quickly:
I should note that senior government officials have publicly and privately in conversations with American officials condemned any such abuses. This is good. Some observers, not all members of the government, have blamed many of these excesses on overzealous bureaucrats. All the same, we believe that the interests of Ukrainian voters would be served if such abuses stopped, and therefore the government should take effective measures toward that end.
The good news is that despite these abuses, we are witnessing a real horse race. President Kuchma was right in telling a number of senior American officials visiting here that it is not possible to predict the winner of your election. Most polls currently show Victor Yushchenko with a lead of anywhere from four to nine points over Prime Minister Yanukovych in both the initial and run-off rounds. And observers on both sides of the political fence talk about a backlash effect in the elections to the crude use of administrative resources by people in authority. But it is too early to make any predictions. Polls have also shown that the undecided vote has been growing sharply.
While these statistics are interesting, let me stress once again that the United States has no preference among the candidates. American officials who visit Ukraine have been scrupulous in asking to see both Victor Yanukovych and Victor Yushchenko. We have a great deal of contact with both men and know that we can work with either one. Our only interest is in the people of Ukraine choosing their own President without hindrance from powerful forces and officials.
The closeness of the race means that election day (or days) will be exciting. We hope those days will also be a stunning achievement in the development of Ukrainian democracy. With that in mind, our policy is supporting two critical measures. The first is the provision of election observers. The OSCE through its election arm ODIHR is providing roughly 600 observers. That's a very small number for the largest country in Europe with 33,000 polling stations. The United States will also be financing another 1000 observers - most of those observers will come from Europe, from your neighbors. We believe that additional international observers would also be a plus. It is very important that Ukrainian NGOs be permitted to participate as observers. The second measure to ensure free and fair elections is exit polls. This should provide an accurate count readily available to the public of the voting. Exit polls were very accurate and effective in your presidential election in 1999 and your Rada elections in 2002. The purpose of these measures is to make sure that Ukrainian election - like Caesar's wife - is above suspicion.
I might note here that these two measures are so important that other parties see value in their use. The CIS has already sent observers who will see what a truly contested election looks like. Similarly some from these same countries are also talking about doing their own exit polling - a very interesting phenomenon.
We want free and fair elections for several reasons:
It is Ukraine's honor that we cannot say at this stage who will be the next president of the country. It will be an even greater honor if the administrative abuses cease, if the counting of votes on election day is done in an honest and transparent manner and if, therefore, the people of Ukraine really do choose their next President.