#23 - JRL 8275 - JRL Home
From: "Alexander Mikhailenko" <anmikh@mail.ru>
Subject: Re Taras Kuzio in JRL #8270
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004

I enjoyed political picture of today's Ukraine drawn by Taras Kuzio. îÅ gathered different facts from political, economic, internal and external fields of the Ukrainian life into a single whole. But this whole seems to me lop-sided, representing an election manifesto of "Our Ukraine". Kuzio's article was destined for Ukrainians who read a lot of materials reflecting different political positions. I think it will be interesting to JRL subscribers to learn at least a part of arguments which are alternative to Kuzio's. These arguments will be based solely on the facts he uses, though there are a lot of other facts to justify alternative assessment of Ukrainian political life today.

Take, for instance, his thesis that the current Ukrainian government is responsible for millions of Ukrainians being forced to work abroad. But what forced them to go abroad? It is economic crisis due to deep reforms. Do you think it would have been better if millions of jobless people stayed hungry at home? Thanks to labor migration many Ukrainian families survived during the most acute period of crisis. Now that the Ukrainian economy moves ahead the migrants will gradually return home. Besides, isn't it a basic principle of a democratic society that a person is free to choose the place of living and work? They are better paid there, and they go. It's the rule of competition - the driver of progress.

In his present article (dated 2004!) Kuzio says that Ukraine's ruling elites have always refused to take responsibility for their actions especially in the period from 1992-1999 before Ukraine's economy improved. He is rather shy to tell about the prominent economic results of the nation in the last several years starting from 2000. Its growth rate is one of the highest in the post Soviet space and in Europe as a whole. In political sphere a dozen of political parties function in the country. Not all of them may be considered classical political parties, but they have only several years of history so far. There is a centrist majority, right-wing (Our Ukraine) and left-wing (communists and socialists) opposition. Ukrainians feel a need to establish a new style of relationship between governing majority and opposition as both of them wear the same pampers.

Kuzio criticizes Yanukovych for saying that it does not matter if Ukraine joins the EU, or not, and that Ukraine will build its own "Europe" inside Ukraine. In fact, they both come up with the same strategy for Ukraine aimed at joining the community of European peoples. Kiev proclaimed the Euro-Atlantic course several years ago, but EU considers that the country doesn't fit the Copenhagen criteria. To build Europe inside Ukraine is in fact to try and achieve these criteria. Apropos, is absolutely everything OK in Europe? This question arises while reading Kuzio's argument about hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian sex slaves. Do they slave in an African fiefdom or in flawless democratic Europe? In strategic sense it is also noteworthy that Kuzio traces similarities in political development of Russia and Ukraine; Western political scientists usually contrast them. Though Putin and Yushchenko are different political figures, the direction of Kuzio 's thought is an interesting one.

How to achieve strategic goals put forward by Kiev? In political dimension the Ukrainian ruling elites should not only discover the gap between themselves and the people, but to bridge it. How does the West help Kiev to achieve this goal? There was an American pressure on Kuchma to send troops to Iraq. And now this is a source of disconnect between the government and the people. Kuzio proposes to ask Yanukovych why his government is keeping Ukrainian troops in Iraq when three quarters of Ukrainians want them to be withdrawn. Judging by this fact there seems to be at least a small contribution (and responsibility!) of the West into splitting the Ukrainian society.

In economic dimension the best way for Ukraine to develop a market economy seems to be widening exchanges with the Western community. The Industrial Union of the Donbas tried to do it by means of participation in the privatization of the Polish steelworks Huta Czestochowa. The bid was turned down on the advice of the Polish Internal Security Agency. Was it done in accordance with the laws and international standards of transparency and openness? Poland is now a member of NATO and EU and may serve as a teacher of democratic attitudes to disciples who aspire to join European Union. In any case I doubt that it will be helpful to fence the Ukraine from the "civilized" economic world.

These remarks are not to play down Kuzio's ideas. People grasp the picture looking at it from different sides. One needs to consider them as complementary and not opposing each other. In this connection I disagree with Kuzio when he states that the real issues confronting Ukraine are the majority's weakness and the opposition's strength. I think that the weaknesses and strengths coexist both in majority's and opposition's attitudes. The balance between them and direction of change is important. It is vital that the ruling majority and opposition pursue nothing other than Ukrainian national interests. It is their common interest that Ukraine turns into a thriving democratic country.

Alexander Mikhailenko,

Professor,
Russian Academy of Public Administration
mikhailenko@ur.rags.ru.