The expert discussion “New Ukraine in the eyes of Ukrainian experts: a roadmap for transformation” was held in Brussels
The expert discussion “New Ukraine in the eyes of Ukrainian experts: a roadmap for transformation” was held in Brussels on March 5. It was organized by the Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels with support of the European Endowment for Democracy and the International Renaissance Foundation’s European Program.
A welcome word by Jerzy Pomianowski, Executive Director of the European Endowment for Democracy: It is a very timely seminar to see a new future of Ukraine. The EED supported this event in order to provide people here in Brussels with an opportunity to hear what the transformation to come is, as presented by top Ukrainian think-tanks. We have really top personalities here, who are involved in the political debate on what and how should Ukraine be changed.
Iryna Bekeshkina, Director of th Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation: Maybe the future of Europe is being created now in Ukraine, the centre of Europe. The latest event – Maidan, the outing of Yanukovych, the protests in the East and South with Russian flags – raise the question of unity and separation in Ukraine. Maidan was totally and mainly supported by West, predominantly supported in the Centre, and generally opposed in the South and East. But: I’d like to stress that even in these regions – 20% in the South and 30% in the East – people supported Maidan. The traditional divisions along the language could be observed. Maidan was supported by Ukrainian-speaking and EU-supporting population and opposed by Russian-speaking population. But does it mean that Putin was right when he was speaking of protecting the Russian-speakers who want to join Russia? Our survey, which unfortunately ended before the events of February (I mean deaths, new Government, Russian intervention), shows very interesting results. We asked 1 question: What the relations of Ukraine and Russia should be: 1) as with others; 2) as independent but friendly states; 3) Ukraine and Russia should unite into one country. Only 12% expressed a desire to join Russia, and NOT a single region had the majority of those who wanted to join Russia. The hottest points were Crimea with 41% and Donetsk with 33%. But neither 41%, nor 33% is the majority. Even among ethnic Russians only 32% wanted to join Russia, which is more than among Ukrainians, but still a very low percentage. Also interesting was that among the voters of the Party of Regions only 28% would like to join Russia, and among communists – only 35%. So, also here, along the party lines, there is no majority. So: In Ukraine there is no one social, regional or political group where the mood to join Russia prevailed. The survey of Razumkov Centre asked a similar question: Do you support the separation of South and East of Ukraine? In the South only 14% said yes, and in the East only 12%, which is by far not the majority. However, there are still 3 threats of separation: 1) Aggression of Russia; 2) Biased politics of the new Government (e.g. the language law, which triggered protests in the East); 3) the perception of the South and East of their defeat. Public diplomacy is needed there, in order to change this perception and to convince people in the South and East that the new programme of reconstructing country is also their victory. What should be done: 1) stop aggression; 2) prevent economic default; 3) take into account special interest of the people in the East and South (language, culture etc.); 4) serious dialogue between the regions at all levels.
Vasyl Yurchyshyn, Director of Economic Programmes of the Razumkov Centre: 2013 was the year of unfulfilled expectations. Last year the belief in Ukraine’s integration with the EU, Association Agreement was unfulfilled. Many opportunities were cancelled after not signing the Association Agreement in November 2013. For Ukraine it is not the result of the current situation. In recent years Ukraine generally demonstrated very poor economic results: losses in world economy, trade, FDI. Therefore, the declining in institutions, in the rule of law, losses in comprehensive environment and industries pushed Ukraine into recession. As of the end of 2013 and now, economy continues to decline. In 2013 we saw the decline of 5%; this year the decline is continuing [Jan-Feb 2014– about 5% as well]. Ukraine is unattractive for FDI [only 3,3 bln last year]. Uncompetitive exports, worsening investment climate will characterise the situation of the nearest future, too. Now there is also a currency crisis. Ukrainian banking system has also lost in resources. International reserves of Ukraine are only around 15 bln, which is much less than short term debt of Ukraine. So: we see very negative macroeconomic dynamics, poor competitiveness. There is a high inflation pressure. The Government tries to keep it down, but does not succeed. Ukraine’s payment position has also deteriorated. Ukraine has poor access to international financial markets and lost trade opportunities with both the West and the East. Ukraine NEEDS the support of the West, the EU, otherwise it will be very difficult to improve the position of Ukraine. And that is to say nothing about the current pre-war situation in Ukraine. Ukraine also needs investment. For the near future, we hope the negotiations with the EU could be revived, so that Ukraine can be better integrated into international trade. Plus the inclusion of Ukraine in the international business cycles and the creation of opportunities through the use of Ukraine’s transit potential.
Yevhen Hlibovytsky, Director of the Pro-Mova: I would like to start with a quote from Brian Mefford, IRI in Kyiv: “Ukraine is never as good or as bad as it seems.” Ukraine is a source of constant surprises. Most recently, Ukraine is the country that brings miracles and makes it happen. What led to Maidan? – A unique sequence of country-specific external factors. When we compared to other countries (Russia, Belarus), we saw that the factors and their effects have been very different. Economic growth in 1998-2008 has been tremendous, followed by a tremendous economic decline in 2008 (14% of GDP), which everyone could feel painfully, and then followed by Yanukovych as a threat to institutions. Yanukovych catalyzed the middle-class against himself, and the middle-class became an actor in Ukraine. The contexts in 2004 and 2013 are very different: in 2013 – Maidan of the civil society, not of organised political power as in 2004. It has been extremely spontaneous. Maidan was the biggest collaboration space in the world. Middle-class as the passionate actor is the one to set the agenda. But none of it is sustainable, because they do not know how to create institutions. Reasons that triggered Maidan and the activation of the middle-class: 1) the winner takes it all principle, which is typical for former Soviet Union countries apart from Ukraine and the Baltic states (so, it was uncommon for Ukraine and was copied by Yanukovych from Putin); 2) the lack of access to social ladders for the young, smart and educated (the same as in Arab countries); 3) unresolved growing security issues. Maidan is a protest against Yanukovych and against all other politicians. What to do: 1) decentralization; 2) hold full elections – presidential, parliamentary and local; new Government scheduled only presidential elections, which means changing names, not the system; there is a genuine demand for new people and parties and local projects; source – NGOs, business, local authorities, the mainstream parties. What we need for this to happen: 1) meritocratic environment; 2) managerial education. What the EU can do: 1) sign the Association Agreement – otherwise everything else loses sense; 2) loans used as a leverage, very conditional; 3) side with Ukraine in dealings with Russia as an internal, not external problem for the EU; 4) lift visas for the society; 5) invest generously into education and cultural exchange.
Yulia Tyschenko, Head of the Board of the Ukrainian Independent Centre for Political Studies: There is a party Renaissance in Ukraine right now: new political forces which emerged during Maidan and advancing now. This will raise the competition among the existing parties and between them and the newcomers. The expectations of the society are very high; people want reforms, new policies in all spheres. The situation in Ukraine today is complicated also from the identity perspective and social-cultural dimension; the issue of historical memory, the question of language. These questions are normally never on top of the agenda of the people. They are second to economic, material concerns. But at times of crisis they come to the forefront and are multiplied by the concerns of security, the vision of the future etc. For the new Government the questions of the understandable reforms and the understandable language of communication with the society are very important, and this is where I expect the EU to help. Of course, if we do not manage to reverse the situation in Crimea at the moment, we will have another frozen conflict in Europe, similar to Transnistrian conflict, but also with elements of inter-ethnic tensions as in the Balkans. Crimea today: 60% of ethnic Russians, 15% of ethnic Tatars, and about 35% of those who identify themselves as Ukrainians. The citizens of Ukraine feel unsafe at the moment, because there were really no reasons whatsoever for any intervention from Russia. The escalation of the conflict and all sorts of provocations along the ethnic lines (Tatars/Slavic) are possible, and we have evidence that makes these concerns real. The Referendum the Crimean authorities are talking about will only make the tension bigger and make the whole process irreversible. These processes will change the political landscape in Europe as a whole, not only Ukraine. Economic reforms and prospects are hard to talk about until the Crimean conflict is resolved. We need: 1) full demilitarisation of Crimea in principle; 2) dialogue with Crimean leadership (which is not identical to the Crimean authorities); 3) potential elections and legal ways out; 4) international observers and constantly ongoing dialogue and observation.
Olena Pavlenko, Head of the DIXI Group: Ukraine is dependent on Russian gas, and Russia uses this gas issue as a weapon against Ukraine. It has already started to do so in the current crisis: Russia already cancelled the gas discount given to Ukraine in December. There are now talks in Ukraine to denounce the Kharkiv agreements, which tie gas prices to Russian fleet residence in Crimea. If Ukraine does cancel them, it will get the gas price of 500 dollars, which is more than the highest of European prices. Ukraine and Slovak republic should sign the agreement on possible reverse flow of gas, so that Ukraine can buy gas from the EU. Ukrainian gas pipeline: We need European companies to invest. Russia will also be using it as a weapon against Ukraine and against the EU in the future. Ukraine energy market: It is still not very transparent. We need closer dialogue between Ukraine and the EU.
Olha Ayvazovska, Head of the Board of the Opora Civic Network: Occupation of the southern part of Ukraine by the Russian army means that the system of checks and balances in the world is currently under threat. Ukraine used to be the third largest nuclear power in the world. It gave up its nuclear potential in exchange of guarantees of security by world powers. Unfortunately, one of the guarantors was Russia, which is now the one breaching them directly. This means that the world is obliged to react on the situation in Ukraine quickly and efficiently. If diplomacy does not work, than none of the countries which now possess or work on developing nuclear weapons will ever give them up. And then we will not be having a frozen conflict in Crimea: we will have a different world order. After three months of protests, which ended in hundreds of victims, what happens now means that Yanukovych enjoyed the support of Russia all along. What happens in Crimea and in the East of Ukraine means that we will not have peaceful, calm elections on May 25, 2014. It is now the prime task of the world community and the Ukrainian Government to make sure that the elections take place on the entire territory of Ukraine and are recognised by the whole country. Speaking of reforms in the field, we need quality election legislation. We need an election code as a legislative basis. We need quick revision of the election system to organise parliamentary elections in fall and local elections that take place continuously. We need to adopt an election system that would disable the usual corruption schemes. The majority constituency election system is unacceptable for Ukraine: it is used to buy votes of the people locally and totally discredits the results of the elections. We also may not allow any referendum that is aimed at refusal of parts of the country from being parts of a unitary state. The referendum declared in Crimea is totally illegal. The international community can help us in forming the respective public opinion. The Venice Commission, OSCE, ODIHR can give their conclusions on the matter and state that this referendum has nothing to do with the legal procedures in the country. Three main tasks in the election sphere until the end of the year: 1) fair, transparent Presidential elections, to have a legitimate guarantor of the Constitution, which is needed; 2) schedule and conduct parliamentary elections in fall under the new election legislation; experts call for open regional lists; 3) adopt an election code which would provide for the rules of elections at all levels and the functioning of the Central Election Committee. But this will be very difficult to accomplish without the help of the international community in overcoming the crisis in Crimea; without a great number of known international observers (i.e. those who have influence in their home countries); and without the help of world experts on election legislation.
Ihor Koliushko, Head of the Board of the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms, focused on a number of legal aspects of the current situation. First, everyone asks whether the change of authorities in Ukraine has been legal and legitimate. Putin keeps saying it was not. I am ready to prove that everything that took place in Ukraine, although of course of revolutionary nature, happened accordingly to the acting Constitution and legislation to the maximal extent possible. None of the Constitution has a provision on what to do when the President orders to shoot at the people and then flees from the country. With the help of European mediators, a solution has been worked out – the agreement between the President and the opposition. The agreement prescribed the change of the Constitution. The Parliament adopted the necessary law. But Yanukovych, instead of signing it, fled from the country. In this situation the Parliament had no alternative but urgently to attend to the issue of authority in the country. The situation needed to be resolved fast. There was no possibility of activating the weeks-long procedure of impeachment, despite the existence of the majority in the Parliament to do so. All decisions at the time had been taken with a constitutional majority, not a simple majority, by MPs from all camps. So, all claims coming from Putin have zero factual basis. The changes in Ukraine are legitimate. Second, the new Government and its primary tasks. There are two groups of tasks: 1) find finances inside and outside the country and fill the state budget; 2) implement institutional reforms that would create the environment for changes in the country. The revolutionary situation in Ukraine is actually favourable for speedy transformations. Reform steps: 1) reorganise the government itself, so that it is formulating policies, not distributing resources and collecting tolls; 2) radical reform for decentralising state power; 3) development of an anti-corruption system; 4) judicial reform and the restoration of justice in Ukrainian courts; 5) renewed Constitution of Ukraine by fall 2014. We need strict monitoring and control from the international community and especially from our European partners, not so much knowledge and expertise.
Oleksandr Sushko, Scientific Director of the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, spoke of the international reactions to the situation in Ukraine. The EU has already recognised that today’s events in Ukraine are extraordinary. The EU Council will convene tomorrow, which is in itself a proof of this. It is a sign that all those institutions involved in the decision-making are fully involved and informed, committed to help Ukraine and understand that Ukraine cannot address the challenges by itself. The Council of Ministers yesterday demonstrated the understanding that Russian behaviour is aggression and confirmed commitments and promises of the EU towards Ukraine. There are 2 agendas: The first and major one – Russia factor – needs a strong position by the EU, needs readiness to act, not speak, and continuity. The current context makes it very difficult to talk of other, more substantial, issues and agenda, such as concluding the Association Agreement, EU technical and financial assistance, integration in all sectors etc. First a hard security issue needs to be resolved. When you are at war, it is not easy to speak of reforms. As for the EU, there is a growing understanding that the European future for Ukraine is the only way of solving the existing problems. There will be room for debate and negotiation on the model of such integration and algorithm of measures on how to do this step by step, including the Association Agreement, visa liberalisation, but also the way to proceed with further acceptance of Ukraine’s European future (a membership perspective). The EU is ready to discuss substantial financial package – and of course there is readiness on the Ukrainian side to accept all the related conditions. But we need strict monitoring from the EU to make the efforts on the money accountable. The future of the Eastern policy of the EU: the EU needs to ensure sufficiency and inclusion of Russia in this. The East is a very complicated region with diverse political, economic and other environment. It is really time to start more substantive and strategic debates in Europe about its East. Listen to civil societies of these countries and find models to include Russia in the whole thing. There is urgency to formulate a more sustainable vision of the EU policy in the region, with a clear membership perspective for the countries involved.
Yevhen Bystrytsky, Executive Director of the International Renaissance Foundation, viewed the civil society developments during Euromaidan, focusing on the structure of civil society activism during Maidan and now and the challenges they are facing. Will the civil society play this active role permanently? The moving force of Maidan was the middle-class, repressed really much during the Yanukovych government. At the same time, if we look at the escalation of protests, we will see that motivations where expressed in slogans of Maidan. The first Maidan was for the Association Agreement. After the brutal violence of Berkut against students, the slogan became dignity. After the silence of the President on what happened, the mood of Maidan became anti-government and for dignity plus justice. But inside of that the motivating consciousness was “we are fighting for the fundamental freedoms, human rights, justice”, especially after the dictatorship laws were adopted. From that point it became clear that there were two trends in the protest movement: 1) traditional activists, like Euromadian SOS, medical services, legal services, IT activists; 2) newly organised, self-organised citizens, organised not by political forces as during the Orange Revolution (only 3% recognised that they were invited to Maidan by political parties), and this category got structured step by step. Now we have the so-called Right Sector, the Civic Council of various Maidan initiatives, the Civic Council of Maidan, and the All-Ukrainian Union Maidan. On the demands of Maidan: 1) anti-corruption – the first issue common for all groups, all people protesting; 2) participation in the decision-making at the governmental level. There is no clear way for how to make different groups interact and work together, but at least their demands are the same. The NGOs organised also the so-called Euromaidans all around the country. In terms of the initiatives: The groups formed in the midst of “street events” have influence on those governmental blocks which are responsible for security. They have created paramilitary groups and are now looking for ways to integrate them into the traditional, existing structures of state forces. The NGO groups want to be involved in (anti-corruption) monitoring of the officials. And the think-tanks will be providing public policy as a new dimension that should exist in the system of the Cabinet of Ministers. They are also important in legal changes and in reconciliation and dialogue. Emergency initiatives are now generated by Putin’s/Russia’s invasion in Ukraine. We feel that the issue of key priority is anti-propaganda to Putin’s Goebbels-like media coverage, through organised information flows to int’l media agencies and also inside the country. Also, one of the needs that became apparent during Euromaidan is the demand for civic education. The role of civil society is increasing and will continue to increase.
Olena Prystayko, Head of the Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels: There are two major issues of today’s Ukraine agenda: handling the Crimea crisis and the need for domestic reforms. Both should be dealt simultaneously, and Crimea crisis should not become an apology for not introducing reforms. In both agendas there is a lot of room for the international community and the EU to step in, namely handling the Russia issue, assistance to Ukraine in introducing reforms in fighting corruption, good governance building, constitutional and legal reforms and civil society further development.
Contacts:
Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels
Olena Prystayko
oprystayko@gmail.com
***
The essential role of the European Program lies in promotion of Ukraine’s European integration, combining external pressure of the EU with the domestic one of the Ukrainian civil society, and thus contributing to promotion of open society values in Ukraine.
