[Senate Hearing 113-513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-513
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 15, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-859 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TIM KAINE, Virginia RAND PAUL, Kentucky
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Daniel E. O'Brien, Staff Director
Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Brzezinski, Dr. Zbigniew K., former U.S. National Security
Advisor, counselor and trustee, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Washington, DC.......................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, opening statement. 2
Melia, Thomas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Response to question submitted for the record by Senator
Edward J. Markey........................................... 40
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Nuland, Hon. Victoria, Assistant Secretary for European and
Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC..... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to questions submitted for the record by the
following Senators:
Robert Menendez.......................................... 37
Bob Corker............................................... 39
Edward J. Markey......................................... 40
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.... 35
Letter from the United Oppositions to the Senate of the United
States......................................................... 36
(iii)
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Shaheen, Durbin, Murphy,
Corker, Risch, Johnson, and McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
I want to thank our distinguished panelists for being here.
Dr. Brzezinski, who will be here shortly, needs no
introduction. His reputation as one of the Nation's leading
voices on foreign policy goes without saying. Assistant
Secretary Nuland and Deputy Assistant Secretary Melia are
equally able to give us a broader perspective on the
implications of current events in the Ukraine, so, on behalf of
the committee, we thank you for being here.
Let me also join Senator McCain in recognizing the former
Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Boris Tarasyuk, and the current
Ambassador of the Ukraine, Olexander Motsyk, who are both here
today. We welcome you to the committee.
We are also joined by members of the Ukrainian Congress
Committee of America, including President Tamara Olexy,
chairman of the board, Stefan Kaczaraj, executive vice
president, Andrew Futey, and board members, Roksolana Lozynskyj
and Michael Sawkiw. So, we welcome all of you, and we
appreciate that many of you are actually from the great State
of New Jersey, and are contributing dramatically to our State.
I am going to entertain Senator McCain's request at this
time, and, without objection, the statement will be entered
into the record.
[Editor's note.--Senator McCain's prepared statement can be
found in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record''
section of this hearing.]
The Chairman. For 20 years, Ukrainians have labored to
reestablish their nation and create a prosperous economy. In
2013, it seemed that the conclusion of association agreements
with the European Union would have a profoundly positive effect
on their national development; but, somewhat unexpectedly, on
Thursday, November 21, Ukraine's President, Viktor Yanukovych,
announced that Ukraine would not sign those agreements, and
people took to the streets. That decision was preceded by
coercive actions by the Russian Government: Ukrainian exports
to Russia were halted by Russian authorities, its energy
lifeline from Russia was publicly threatened by Russian
Ministers, and even EU member states were subjected to
intimidation by Moscow for being sponsors of Ukraine's
affiliation with the European Union.
Since then, the world has watched as Presidents Yanukovych
and Putin negotiated a deal that will bring Ukraine once again
within Russia's political and economic orbit, suggesting
Russia's determination to exert control over Ukraine.
We are here today to get a better understanding of the
events leading up to President Yanukovych's decision to break
with the EU, the decision's implication for the future of
Ukraine, for the region, and, in my perspective, for the world.
Let me say that, earlier this month, I met with members of
New Jersey's Ukrainian diaspora, and they asked me to bring
attention to the thousands of protestors in the Maidan who want
a voice in the future of their country and respect for their
human rights and dignity, and I would like to assure them today
that this committee is not deaf to those brave people whose
capacity for hope and appetite for freedom has compelled them
to take to the streets. The world is, indeed, watching. And how
those who have been in the Maidan, and who leave it, are
treated will also be watched by this committee and the world.
With that, let me turn to Senator Corker for his remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I typically do not read formal remarks, but I am going to
do that today.
I would like to welcome the witnesses from this
administration, as well as Dr. Brzezinski. I am glad that the
chairman has called this hearing. I think that the importance
of Ukraine is not entirely appreciated.
With the exception of Russia and France, Ukraine is the
largest country in Europe, with a population of 46 million
people and vast unrealized potential. And, while Ukraine is
critically important in its own right, what is often missed is
that positive change in Ukraine would help stimulate positive
change in Russia. In my view, what has transpired in Ukraine is
one of the most recent examples where United States leadership,
at the right moment, could have been decisive.
I recognize that the history of this is complex and there
are mitigating factors and forces involved that, even in the
best of times, we have little influence over. We should
acknowledge that the Europeans did not want us deeply involved,
fearing United States involvement would risk provoking Russia
and framing the decision as part of a geopolitical struggle.
The Ukrainian Government, for its part, seemed to be
playing each side against each other, asking for unrealistic
terms from the IMF that ignored the country's need for reform.
Ukraine's leadership failed to meet the EU's condition for an
association agreement and, instead, opted for a $15 billion
loan and a natural gas discount from Russia. This decision to
place the interest of Ukraine's political elites above the
country's well-being has been rejected by the majority of
Ukrainians, which is substantiated by the massive protests held
since November.
But, none of this accounts for why United States policy
toward Ukraine was weak when it needed to be decisive and
forceful. Critics have accused the administration of bumbling
or incompetence as the reason for the absence of assertiveness
and leadership on our part. But, I do not think that that is
the case. A lack of U.S. leadership appears to be intentional,
an example of troubling recent tendencies of the
administration's policies in places where our interests are
being challenged.
Apparently overly concerned with offending Russia, the
administration seems to have somehow made the calculation
initially that a passive response might yield more than
assertive U.S. leadership. I think that it is important to ask
now, with Russia gaining at our expense in Syria, in Iran, on
missile defense, Edward Snowden, and now Ukraine, whether that
was the right approach. When President Yanukovych saw that we
did not come out clearly and forcefully when Russia all but
boycotted Ukrainian goods and threatened them, he probably
reached the same conclusion that many of our friends in tough
neighborhoods have made: we are not the partner that they can
count on in tough times.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that our risk-
averse policy precluded the very real opportunity to seek
change in Russia through Ukraine by not making Ukraine a
concession to the Kremlin, but by making Ukraine an example.
The repercussions in Russia of a free and prosperous Ukraine
integrated with Europe could be enormous. This might not be in
Putin's personal interest, but is certainly in the interest of
the Russian people.
Fortunately, I think that the administration has now begun
to assert our interests and those of the Ukrainian people, but,
like in other places, they got there only in reaction to events
well after they begin to play out unfavorably.
Ukraine is not a zero-sum game between Russia and the West.
The popular sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of moving toward
Europe, and I hope that that effort will ultimately prevail,
but we have to determine how to best aid and hasten that move.
Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony on the
topic. I appreciate all of our witnesses being here.
And, Ms. Nuland, I think that you have asserted effort
there recently, which I much appreciate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our first panel today is the Assistant Secretary of
European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, and the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State, the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, Mr. Thomas Melia. We appreciate your
appearance. Your full statements will be included in the
record. We would ask you to summarize it in about 5 minutes or
so, so that we can enter into a dialogue with you.
And, with that, Madam Secretary, you will be up first.
STATEMENT OF HON. VICTORIA NULAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking
Member Corker, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. It is my honor to appear before you today
to discuss the situation in Ukraine and our response to it.
These are, indeed, challenging times for the people of
Ukraine and for people everywhere who care about democracy,
economic prosperity, rule of law, and a European future for
that country.
First, let me express our gratitude to this committee and
to the U.S. Senate for your leadership on Ukraine and for the
superb working relationship between the executive and
legislative branches of government on this issue. Senate
Resolution 319, introduced in December and adopted on January
7, sent a strong bipartisan message of concern and support to
the Ukrainian people at a key moment.
I also want to thank and commend Senators McCain and Murphy
for bringing that bipartisan support directly to the people of
Ukraine on a key weekend in December and engaging with
President Yanukovych, his government, the opposition, the
business community, and civil society in support of a peaceful,
democratic way out of the crisis. The people of Ukraine saw
America stand with them at a critical moment, when they could
have felt very alone.
The world has watched as the peaceful protest of hundreds
of thousands of Ukrainians on the Maidan, in Kiev, and tens of
thousands in cities across Ukraine. I am often asked why they
come out, week after week, young and old, and from every
economic sector of Ukraine, despite the frigid weather. I can
only tell you what Ukrainians tell us. They say that what began
as a protest against the government's decision to pause on the
route to the association agreement and a deep and comprehensive
free trade agreement with the European Union quickly deepened
and broadened into something very much more in the ensuing
weeks as events snowballed. These events included the violent
action by security forces against Maidan protesters on November
30, the lack of government accountability that followed that,
the second attempt to use security forces to shut down the
Maidan in the wee hours of December 11, an evening that EU High
Representative Cathy Ashton and I were both in Ukraine, and,
finally, the Ukrainian Government's decision to accept $15
billion in Russian bailout money. The Ukrainians tell us that,
over those weeks, the movement that started as a demand for a
European future grew into a protest for basic human dignity and
justice, for clean and accountable government, and economic and
political independence of Ukraine.
So, why does the United States have an interest in how this
turns out? Our chairman and ranking member have spoken to that.
It is because countries that live freely and independently and
respect the rule of law are more stable and they make better
partners for the United States. The same principles and values
that Ukrainians are fighting for are the cornerstone of all
free democracies, and America supports these values in every
country on the planet.
The EuroMaidan protestors--students, workers, pensioners,
priests, entrepreneurs, business moguls, and pop stars--are all
calling for the same basic rights that we hold dear here in the
United States. They want to live in a country where their
government truly represents the wishes of the people and where
they can safely exercise their rights without fear of
oppression.
Just this past weekend, tens of thousands of protestors
returned to the Maidan, and they also returned to the streets
and squares across Kiev to make their demands and to protest
the latest assaults on human dignity, including the beatings of
opposition leader and former Interior Minister, Yuriy Lutsenko,
and journalist, Tetyana Chornoval, as well as dozens of other
acts of intimidation and criminality and efforts to stifle the
media and political activity across the country.
Like the vast majority of Ukrainians, the United States and
our partners in the European Union want to see the current
standoff resolved politically, democratically, and, above all,
peacefully. This last point applies to the government and to
protestors, alike. We condemn the actions of rioters outside
the Kiev court building on January 10. However, the use of
violence and acts of repression carried out by government
security forces and their surrogates have compelled us to make
clear, publicly and privately, to the Government of Ukraine
that we will consider a broad range of tools at our disposal if
those in positions of authority in Ukraine employ or encourage
violence against their own citizens.
We have also pressed all key stakeholders--President
Yanukovych, his government, the opposition, business
representatives, religious leaders, and civil society--to
engage in a good-faith dialogue to get Ukraine back on the path
to economic health, justice, and a European future.
When I last met with President Yanukovych, which was on
December 11, he asserted that he still wanted those things for
his people, and Foreign Minister Kaczaraj reassured me of the
same thing in a phone call on Monday. If those assertions are
true, we call on the Ukrainian Government to make them credible
through concrete actions to restore government accountability,
rule of law, and engagement with Europe and the IMF.
In this connection, we commend the European Union for
leaving the door open for Ukraine and the International
Monetary Fund for its willingness to work with Ukraine when the
government decides that it is actually willing to roll up its
sleeves and address the serious structural and macroeconomic
problems that have plagued that country for years.
The IMF is offering a proven, if arduous, long-term-diet
plan back to good health for Ukraine. Like any tough health
regime, it will require work and sacrifice, but the rewards are
great. When Ukraine's leaders are ready to invest in that kind
of a program, the United States and our EU partners will help
them sustain that commitment. We urge them to restart IMF
consultations now.
Looking forward, the United States will also work hard to
support free and fair Presidential elections in 2015, and a
fair electoral process leading up to the elections. The rerun
of parliamentary elections in December was not up to
international standards. We call on the Government of Ukraine
to fully investigate all regularities there, and we call on all
Ukrainians to help guard their democracy against encroachments
on media freedom, political intimidation, efforts to rig,
corrupt, or undercut the electoral structures and processes.
U.S. preelectoral assistance in Ukraine will likely include
programs to support citizen oversight of the electoral
environment and the conduct of the elections, independent media
coverage, and informed citizen awareness and participation. We
will also focus on supporting the integrity of the process and
not support any specific candidates or parties. Like the rest
of our policy toward Ukraine, this will be carefully
coordinated with the EU.
In addition to election-related programming, the State
Department and USAID are reviewing how best to support
Ukrainian civil society and the media, and to further
strengthen rule of law. Given the threats currently facing many
nongovernmental organizations who participated in the
EuroMaidan, we are looking at ways we can support those who
feel that they may be in personal danger, as well. And we will
work with the EU to support their efforts to disseminate
reliable information on what European integration really means
to the Ukrainian public, especially in the East, and to counter
false narratives and fear-mongering.
As we have said repeatedly over the last few months--and,
Senator Corker, I was pleased to hear you say this--Ukraine's
European integration is not a zero-sum calculation. We
encourage Ukraine to continue to develop normal and strong
sovereign relations with all of its neighbors. There is also,
unfortunately, a good deal of disinformation in Russia about
the potential effect that the EU's Eastern Partnership could
have on its economy and arrangements with neighbors, so we
encourage the EU also to redouble its efforts to counter those
false narratives within Russia and actively make its case that
a more prosperous, more European Ukraine will lift the whole
neighborhood, both economically and in terms of democratic
stability.
Ukrainians have struggled for 20 years, as you said, Mr.
Chairman, to protect and strengthen their sovereignty, their
democracy, and their economy. The events of the last 6 months
demonstrate that Ukrainians want and deserve better. I am proud
to work with this committee to support those aspirations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Nuland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Victoria Nuland
Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and
distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is
my honor to appear before you today to discuss the situation in Ukraine
and our response to it. These are challenging times for the people of
Ukraine and for people everywhere who care about democracy, economic
prosperity, rule of law and a European future for that country.
First let me express our gratitude to this committee and to the
U.S. Senate for your leadership on Ukraine, and for the superb working
relationship between the executive and legislative branches of
government on this issue. Senate Resolution 319, introduced in December
and adopted on January 7, sent a strong, bipartisan message of concern
and support to the Ukrainian people at a key moment. I also want to
thank and commend Senators McCain and Murphy for bringing that
bipartisan support directly to the people of Ukraine on a key weekend
in December, and engaging with President Yanukovych, his government,
the opposition, the business community and civil society in support of
a peaceful, democratic way out of the crisis. The people of Ukraine saw
America stand up with them at a critical moment when they could have
felt very alone.
The whole world has watched the peaceful protest of hundreds of
thousands of Ukrainians on the Maidan in Kiev and tens of thousands in
other cities across Ukraine. I am often asked why they come out week
after week, young and old, and from every economic sector of Ukraine,
despite the frigid weather. I can only tell you what Ukrainians tell
us. They say that what began as a protest against the government's
decision to ``pause'' on the route to an Association Agreement and Deep
and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union deepened
and broadened into something much more in the ensuing weeks as events
snowballed. These included: the violent attempt by security forces to
clear the Maidan of protestors on November 30 and the lack of
government accountability that followed; the second attempt to use
security forces to shut down the Maidan in the wee hours of December
11; and finally the Ukrainian Government's decision to accept $15
billion in Russian bailout money. Ukrainians tell us that over those
weeks the movement that started as a demand for a European future grew
into a protest for basic human dignity and justice, clean and
accountable government, and economic and political independence of
Ukraine.
Why does the United States have an interest in how this turns out?
Because these same principles and values are the cornerstone of all
free democracies, and America supports them in every country on the
planet. Countries that live freely and independently and respect the
rule of law are more stable and make better partners for the United
States. The EuroMaidan protestors--students, workers, pensioners,
priests, entrepreneurs, business moguls and popstars--are all calling
for the same basic rights we hold dear here in the United States. They
want to live in a country where their government truly represents the
wishes of the people and where they can safely exercise their rights
without the fear of oppression.
Just this past weekend tens of thousands returned to the Maidan in
Kiev, hundreds joined them in other cities like Kharkiv, and some 500
cars participated in a ``protest drive'' called AutoMaidan. They
returned to the squares and streets of Ukraine to make their demands,
and to protest the latest assaults on human dignity, including the
beatings of opposition leader and former Interior Minister, Yuriy
Lutsenko, and journalist, Tetyana Chornovol, as well as dozens of other
acts of intimidation and criminality, and efforts to stifle the media
and political activity across the country.
Like the vast majority of Ukrainians, the United States and our
partners in the European Union want to see the current standoff
resolved politically, democratically and above all, peacefully. This
last point applies to the government and protestors alike, and we
condemn the actions of rioters outside a Kiev court building on January
10. However, the use of violence and acts of repression carried out by
government security forces and their surrogates have compelled us to
make clear publicly and privately to the Government of Ukraine that we
will consider a broad range of tools at our disposal if those in
positions of authority in Ukraine employ or encourage violence against
their own citizens. We have also pressed all key stakeholders--
President Yanukovych, his government, the opposition, business
representatives, religious leaders, and civil society--to engage in a
good-faith dialogue to get Ukraine back on the path to economic health,
justice, and a European future. When I last met with President
Yanukovych on December 11, he asserted that he still wanted all those
things for his people. If that assertion is still true, we call on him
to make it credible through concrete actions to restore government
accountability, rule of law and engagement with Europe and the IMF.
In this connection, we commend the European Union for leaving the
door open for Ukraine, and the International Monetary Fund for its
willingness to work with Ukraine when the government is willing to roll
up its sleeves and address the serious structural and macroeconomic
problems that have plagued the country for years. The IMF is offering a
proven, if arduous, long-term diet plan back to good economic health.
Like any tough health regime, it requires work and sacrifice but the
rewards are great. When Ukraine's leaders are ready to invest in that
kind of program, the United States and our EU partners will help them
sustain the commitment. We urge them to restart consultations now.
Looking forward, the United States will work hard to support a free
and fair Presidential election in 2015. The rerun of parliamentary
elections held on December 15 was not conducted according to
international standards, especially with respect to alleged misconduct
during the election campaign. We call on the Government of Ukraine to
thoroughly investigate all reported violations, and to prosecute those
responsible for them. We also call on all Ukrainians to help guard
their democracy against encroachments on media freedom, political
intimidation or efforts to rig, corrupt, or undercut electoral
structures and processes.
U.S. preelection assistance to Ukraine likely will include programs
to support citizen oversight of the campaign environment and the
conduct of the elections, independent media coverage and informed civic
awareness and participation. The United States will focus on supporting
the integrity of the process, and not support any specific candidates
or parties. Like the rest of our policy toward Ukraine, our assistance
will be carefully coordinated with the EU.
In addition to election-related programming, the State Department
and USAID are reviewing how best to support Ukrainian civil society and
media and to further strengthen the rule of law. Given the threats
currently facing many nongovernmental organizations who participated in
the EuroMaidan, we are looking at ways we can support those who feel
they may be in danger. We will also work with the EU to support their
efforts to disseminate reliable information on what European
integration really means to the Ukrainian public, especially in the
East, and to counter false narratives and fear-mongering.
As I have said repeatedly over the past few months, Ukraine's
European integration is not a zero-sum calculation. We encourage
Ukraine to continue to develop normal and strong, sovereign relations
with all neighbors. There is also, unfortunately a good deal of
disinformation in Russia about the potential effect that the EU's
Eastern Partnership could have on its economy and arrangements with
neighbors. We have encouraged the EU to redouble its efforts to counter
false narratives in Russia and actively make its case that a more
prosperous, European Ukraine will lift the whole neighborhood, both
economically and in terms of democratic stability.
Ukrainians have struggled for 20 years to protect and strengthen
their sovereignty, their democracy and their economy. The events of the
last 6 months demonstrate that Ukrainians want and deserve better. I am
proud to work with this committee to support their aspirations.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Melia.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Melia. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker,
and other Senators, for inviting me to testify on the situation
in Ukraine.
Over the last few weeks and months, your forthright
statements, Mr. Chairman, forthright and principled statements,
and those of so many others on this committee and in the
Congress, have sent important messages about the interests and
the focus of the United States and the American people to
assist Ukraine at this critical moment.
It is also an honor to appear beside Ambassador Nuland,
who, you may know, is revered across the State Department, and
especially in my Bureau for Democracy and Human Rights, for her
leadership on issues of democracy and human rights.
Working with her Bureau, our Embassy in Kiev, the
Department of Justice, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development, our Bureau has, over the last 3 years, maintained
direct and frequent engagement with the Government of Ukraine,
and intensely with Ukrainian civil society, on democracy and
rule-of-law issues. These dialogues, often under the umbrella
of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission, have
provided a regular high-level forum for serious, honest
exchanges about the government's reform efforts, which have
waxed and waned during the tenure of Viktor Yanukovych as
President, and for frank conversations about problem areas,
such as corruption, democratic backsliding, and other setbacks.
We have utilized this forum to push back in the year 2010,
on harassment of journalists in civil society in the first
months of the Yanukovych administration, raising these issues
directly with Cabinet members, including the head of the
Internal Security Service in Ukraine. And the harassment waned
for a while.
Within this working group, we have held frank discussions
about the increase in the harassment of journalists in civil
society which surfaced again this year. As it did in 2010, the
efforts by the government to repress civil society and
independent journalism have galvanized civic activism across
Ukraine. They have formed coalitions, called the Stop
Censorship Movement and the New Citizen Campaign, which
mobilized and informed citizens about their basic rights under
Ukraine's laws and constitution. Nonpartisan civil society
remains a significant, powerful force for democratic reform in
Ukraine.
Unfortunately, the negative trend in the treatment of
journalists, in particular, has seen a resurgence in the past
few months. According to the Institute of Mass Information,
respected Ukrainian media watchdog, there are more than 100
attacks and cases of intimidation against journalists in 2013,
most half of them occurring in December, alone. In addition,
IMI recorded 120 cases of obstruction of journalist
professional activities, 51 cases of censorship, 44 cases of
economic and political pressure, and five arrests and
detentions.
While the protests on the Maidan and across the country may
have lost some of their numbers, they have lost none of their
intensity. The embers that sparked the protests in late
November are still burning and will not be easily extinguished.
The tens of thousands of people who turned out again this past
weekend in Kiev and other cities across Ukraine, now in the
third month of these protests, testify to this. And, thanks to
the support of this committee and the Congress, we have
invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other
goals to ensure a secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine.
Since 2009 alone, when President Obama took office, the
U.S. Government has provided more than $184 million in
assistance to Ukraine in programs under the rubric of governing
justly and democratically, those programs which focus on
professional development programs for judges, Members of
Parliament, legal advocates, civil society, and democratic
political parties, elections, and independent media. Most of
this is managed--and I would say managed well--by our
colleagues at the U.S. Agency for International Development,
led by Paige Alexander and her colleagues at the mission in
Ukraine, but it also includes programs from the State
Department, our Bureau, Department of Justice, and elsewhere
across the U.S. Government. This level of assistance
underscores both our commitment to Ukraine and our intention to
continue engaging both with the government and the people of
Ukraine. Our approach to Ukraine complements that of our EU
partners and what they sought in their association agreement: a
Ukraine that is more responsive to its citizens, that offers
its people opportunities that a growing free-market economy
would provide based on the rule of law.
Looking forward, we will continue to work with our
colleagues elsewhere in the State Department, AID, and across
the government, to support dialogue with the government,
support for civil society, and especially independent media.
We know there are senior officials in the Ukrainian
Government today, as well as in the business community, just
like in the opposition and in the civil society community, who
believe in a democratic and European future for their country.
They continue to work hard to move their country and their
President in the right direction.
We will continue to try to provide targeted, effective support
to Ukraine's democrats in and out of the government. This
committee's continuing support and attention remains absolutely
essential. Again, we appreciate your support for last week's
resolution, the Murphy resolution. I think that sent a very
powerful message. And this hearing today underscores that, as
well.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas O. Melia
Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and
distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for
inviting me to testify on the situation in Ukraine. We very much
appreciate the attention you are according to a country at the center
of Europe and a valued partner for the United States.
Last week the Senate unanimously passed Senator Murphy's Senate
Resolution 319, which came out of this committee: Expressing support
for the Ukrainian people in light of President Yanukovych's decision
not to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union.
I am pleased to provide additional context from my Bureau, the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor which, in partnership with
the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, our Embassy in Kiev, the
Department of Justice and with the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), has been in direct and frequent engagement during
the past 3 years with the Government of Ukraine and Ukrainian civil
society in bilateral dialogues on democracy and rule of law issues.
As my colleague Assistant Secretary Nuland noted these are indeed
challenging times for the people of Ukraine and for people everywhere
who care about the future of Ukraine. Many of us continue to monitor
the ongoing developments in the center of Kiev on the ``EuroMaidan''
and in other cities across Ukraine that have come to symbolize a
fundamental struggle for economic opportunity, political freedom, and
personal expression.
While the protests may have lost some of their intensity I believe
the embers that sparked the protests in late November are still burning
and will not be easily extinguished. The tens of thousands of people
who turned out again this past weekend in Kiev and other cities across
Ukraine are testimony to this.
Senators McCain and Murphy have shared their experiences in the
days after they returned from their December 15 visit to Kiev, which
they described as ``unforgettable and moving,'' standing on the stage
overlooking the Maidan and addressing a crowd estimated at 500,000--
some of whom shouted cheers of ``Thank you, USA!''
The United States stands with the Ukrainian people in solidarity in
their struggle for fundamental human rights and a more accountable
government. To that end, we call on the government to intensify its
investigations and to bring to justice those responsible for inciting
incidents of violence, particularly on November 30 and December 11.
Violence and intimidation have no place in a democratic state. We
urge the Government of Ukraine to ensure that those who have led or
participated in peaceful protests are not subjected to prosecution or
other forms of political repression.
At the same time, we will continue to engage with the Government of
Ukraine. Ukraine remains an important partner for the United States.
Our overall approach to Ukraine complements what our EU partners are
also seeking in their Association Agreement--a Ukraine that is more
responsive to its people and that offers its people the opportunities
that a growing, free market economy based on the rule of law provides.
The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed in 2008
demonstrates the broad range of our relations, from economic and
defense reform, to energy, to strengthening democracy, the rule of law,
and human rights. The fact that the Charter has endured--even after
changes in administrations in both our governments since 2008--is
testimony to the enduring nature of our partnership.
Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has
supported Ukrainians as they developed democratic skills and
institutions, strengthened the rule of law, and promoted civic
participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for
Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We have invested over $5
billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a
secure, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine. Of that amount well over
$815 million was for democracy and exchange programs. Much of this is
being implemented through a range of technical assistance programs and
working with nongovernmental actors in Ukraine.
Since 2009 when President Obama took office, the U.S. Government
has provided over $184 million in Governing Justly and Democratically
(GJD) assistance to Ukraine. This includes democracy programs managed
by USAID and the State Department, and exchange programs managed by the
State Department and the Open World Leadership Center.
A key element of the Strategic Partnership's Charter to strengthen
Ukraine's democracy is the Political Dialogue/Rule of Law Working
Group, which brings together American and Ukrainian officials to
exchange ideas about best practices, the Ukrainian Government's reform
efforts, and about problems areas, such as corruption, which has
stunted Ukraine's economic and social development. Inclusive in its
approach, the Working Group--which I cochair together with a senior
Ukrainian counterpart--welcomes input from civil society and
nongovernmental representatives from both countries. To date we have
met formally six times in Kiev and Washington since 2009. Our last
meeting was in October in Kiev, and the next meeting is planned for
this March in Washington.
Within the working group, we held frank discussions about the
increase in harassment of journalists and civil society that has taken
place in recent years. This harassment galvanized civil society.
Together they formed new coalitions to stand up and push back, such as
the ``Stop Censorship!'' movement and the ``New Citizen'' campaign,
which sought to mobilize and inform citizens about the problems and
their basic rights under the Ukraine's laws and constitution.
Unfortunately, the negative trend in the treatment of journalists
has continued, and the Government of Ukraine has failed to consistently
respect the rights of freedom of speech and press provided by the
constitution and by law. Ukraine's ratings for media freedom by
international groups, such as Freedom House and Reporters without
Borders, have declined for 3 years in a row.
Interference with and pressure on media outlets by the government
has increased, including the government's tolerance of increased levels
of violence toward journalists. Both media owners and journalists at
times yield to government pressure and intimidation by practicing self-
censorship. There is also an emerging pattern of targeted intimidation
and violence against journalists and activists brave enough to speak
out.
According to the Institute of Mass Information (IMI), a respected
Ukrainian media watchdog, there were more than 100 attacks and cases of
intimidation against journalists in 2013--nearly half of these occurred
in December. In addition, IMI recorded 120 cases of obstruction of
journalists' professional activities, 51 cases of censorship, 44 cases
of economic and political pressure, and 5 arrests and detentions. The
U.S Government will continue to speak out frankly and forcefully
against violence, intimidation, and repression whenever and wherever it
occurs, as we
have in recent weeks with regard to the appalling and brutal beating of
Tatiana Chornovol on Christmas Day.
In our working group, we also continued to raise our concerns about
politically motivated prosecutions, including that of former Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. We urged the government to allow Mrs.
Tymoshenko to obtain the medical treatment she requires outside the
country, to end all politically motivated prosecutions, and to
undertake comprehensive justice sector reform to ensure such selective
justice does not recur.
Other issues of concern discussed were election standards and
recent local and national elections. In October 2010, local elections
did not meet the standards for openness and fairness due to numerous
procedural and organizational irregularities, including incidents where
authorities pressured election observers and candidates. The 2012
parliamentary elections did not meet international standards for
fairness or transparency, and were assessed as a step backward compared
with other recent national elections in the country. Repeat elections
in December in five disputed single-mandate districts from the 2012
elections were no better.
Looking forward, we will continue to work in concert with the
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, our Embassy in Kiev, and with
USAID to support free and fair Presidential elections in 2015--not only
on Election Day but in the many months ahead.
We believe the frank and open conversations of the Working Group
have strengthened our efforts, cooperation, and engagement with the
Government of Ukraine on several important bilateral issues. For
example, our engagement helped to press the Government of Ukraine in
key areas, such as adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which
came into force in November 2012. The Embassy did much to facilitate
deliberations to enable its adoption. Among other reforms, the code
introduced adversarial criminal proceedings, alternatives to pre-trial
detention and improved due process guarantees.
Two other recent reforms were new laws on Public Associations and
Access to Public Information. Both of these laws benefit civil society
in that they simplify registration procedures for NGOs, expand their
ability to engage in a broader range of activities, including limited
fundraising, and create a mandate for more transparent and accountable
government by requiring authorities to provide government information
upon request.
In addition, during 2103 Ukraine's Parliament passed 18 separate
pieces of reform legislation as part of its preparations to sign the
Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Trade Agreement with
the European Union.
These developments have, to a notable degree, been shaped and
influenced by Ukrainian civil society, including think tanks,
university centers, NGOs, and advocacy groups, which provided expertise
on important policymaking initiatives outside of government.
Civil society has played a very visible and vital role in our
bilateral working group dialogues. In connection with the formal
meetings, civil society representatives convened independent parallel
democracy and rule of law sessions, in which we, together with
Government of Ukraine officials, took part. Some of the outcomes and
analysis from these events helped inform our discussion during the
formal dialogues.
As a result, we have facilitated and fostered direct contact
between civil society and Ukrainian Government officials--in Kiev and
Washington--to the level that civil society representatives now
participate in the dialogues as observers, which, in the context of
similar bilateral dialogues that we have with other governments, is an
unusual demonstration of transparency and inclusiveness. We hope and
expect that this practice will continue.
Dialogue and passage of good laws are only the first steps; the
challenge comes in the implementation. And this is where we will
continue to work with the government and civil society. Through our
dialogues we have had honest, substantive, and thoughtful discussions
about the challenges, problems and opportunities confronting Ukraine
and affecting our bilateral partnership.
It is clear that we have not shied away from clearly and frankly
expressing our concerns about the current setbacks to the rule of law
and democratic development, increasing corruption, and other democratic
backsliding.
Still, we know today that there are senior officials in the
Ukrainian Government, in the business community, as well as in the
opposition, civil society and religious community who believe in a
democratic and European future for their country. They continue to work
hard to move their country and their President in the right direction.
We urge the government and the President to listen to these voices,
to the Ukrainian people, to the EuroMaidan, and work toward building a
more democratic, and prosperous Ukraine.
We who care deeply about Ukraine remain engaged and stand with the
people of Ukraine because they deserve much better government
performance and accountability. We will continue to support the
aspirations of all Ukrainian citizens for a more democratic future, in
which the rule of law and respect for human rights prevail. During
these past 2 months we have witnessed a renewed energy and optimism.
People of all ages, of all classes, of all walks of life, and from all
parts of the country are taking ownership of their future and coming
out to demand a European future with great courage.
On New Year's Eve, an estimated 200,000 Ukrainians gathered on the
EuroMaidan to sing their national anthem--``Ukraine Has Not Yet
Perished''--and welcome 2014, a new year of hope and transition to a
more democratic country. One cannot help but to be moved and inspired
after viewing the video images and photos of that night posted on the
Internet.
In that spirit, we continue to hold out the prospect of a closer
and mutually beneficial partnership. We can be better friends and
partners with a more democratic Ukraine than we can with a less
democratic Ukraine.
And beyond our bilateral engagement, we will also continue to work
with the European Union and within the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe to press for respect for human rights and
democratic principles in Ukraine.
The vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace remains as
compelling today as it did when it was first articulated some two
decades ago. The United States seeks to work with the Ukrainian people
and government to ensure a free, prosperous, and stable Ukraine
anchored in the European future that its citizens desire.
This committee's support and attention remains absolutely essential
in Ukraine's continued democratic development. Again, we appreciate the
committee's efforts on last week's resolution, this hearing, and your
continued focus on Ukraine.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you both.
Let me start off with an observation from our next witness
after this panel. Dr. Brzezinski has said that Russia cannot be
a democracy if it is an empire, and that it cannot be an empire
if it lacks control of the Ukraine. Is that a view that you
share?
Ambassador Nuland. One would hope that the Russian
Federation is not seeking to be an empire, that, according to
its own constitution, it is seeking to be a democracy. The
point that we have made repeatedly to Russia, and that I
certainly made on my trip to Russia between two trips to
Ukraine in December, was that a Ukraine that is economically
stable and prosperous should be no threat to Russia; that this
is not a zero-sum game that we are playing here; and that, in
fact, the same benefits that the EU was offering to Ukraine,
benefits of association and economic integration, are also
available to a Russia that wants to take the same market-
opening and democratic reform steps that Ukraine has already
taken, 18 pieces of legislation having already been completed.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that, but clearly the
Russians' view, in the greater scheme of things, even in the
disparaging way in which they talk about the Ukraine as
``Little Russia,'' shows that, in fact, their aspirations are
very concrete, as is witnessed, not by their words, but by
their actions. And I am wondering why the United States and the
West failed to enforce certain restrictions, particularly
against economic coercion, that were part of the Trilateral
Agreement of 1984. I do not get the sense that we have a very
aggressive response to what the Russians have been doing, and
continue to do, in this regard. And as I hear your language--I
do not disagree with anything you are saying--but, as I hear
your language, it almost seems to be a language that does not
recognize the incredible coercive measures that are being taken
against the Ukraine by the Russian Federation.
So, why did we and the rest of the West not get more
engaged when those measures were taking place and say, ``These
are violations of that Trilateral Agreement and other
agreements that have been had''?
Ambassador Nuland. We have made clear, consistently, both
publicly and privately, that the coercive actions of of Russia,
not only against Ukraine, but also against Moldova and Georgia,
are violations of many undertakings that they have made,
including Helsinki Principles and, in some cases, WTO
obligations. And we will continue to be absolutely clear about
that.
More importantly, what we have been doing is trying to work
with Ukraine to get it on a path of increasing economic
independence and self-sustainment. Ukraine is vulnerable to
pressure from the outside, because it has not done what it
needs to do in terms of taking reform steps in its economy----
The Chairman. I do not mean to interrupt you, Madam
Secretary. I am all for creating a more prosperous, stable, and
economically viable Ukraine, but in the interim, while we are
seeking that goal, Ukraine is very susceptible to being pounded
on by the Russian Federation in the manner in which it has
been. And, while we may register protests, it seems to me, for
example, that if there are WTO violations, we should not be
registering protests, but actually following WTO violations and
pursuing those to be ultimately achieved, in that setting as
well as others.
You mentioned in your opening statement that the Department
remains open to a wide range of possible reactions, depending
upon how the Yanukovych government continues to act,
particularly with regards to the protestors. Now, I believe
that supporting sanctions and visa restrictions are among the
options that should be seriously considered if, in fact, we
continue to see violence used against individuals who
peacefully demonstrate in their country to express their
opposition to the government's views and who want their human
dignity. Are those elements of options that the State
Department is willing to consider?
Ambassador Nuland. Mr. Chairman, all tools of government
are on the table, including those.
The Chairman. I would like to hear from you, Mr.
Secretary--I appreciate what you said, but what more can be
done to assist and support journalists and civil society
actors? As the Yanukovych family takes over TV channels and
newspapers, and intimidation of independent journalists
increases, what support are we directly providing, or can we
provide, to the free media in the Ukraine? Are the Ukrainian
services of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty,
providing the appropriate information and direction in a
country that increasingly seems to have its government clamping
down on what is a free media?
Mr. Melia. It is an important and appropriate question, Mr.
Chairman.
We have--the U.S. Government, writ large--provided, over a
number of years, financial assistance that enables the
professionalization of journalism in Ukraine. Media in Ukraine
faces many of the same economic survival challenges that media
outlets do across the world today. In addition, there is
political pressure on advertisers to stay away from media
outlets that are critical of the government, and that creates a
new dimension of difficulty for them.
So, our programs have supported online media outlets, the
kinds of media watchdog organizations that I quoted earlier.
The Institute for Mass Information is a beneficiary of some
U.S. Government assistance. And, as I do when I travel to
Ukraine, and others do, we make a point of visiting those
outlets, doing our interviews with them, as well as with
others, showing that we know who they are and we respect their
independence. So, there is a variety of things that we can do,
politically----
The Chairman. Do you speak to VOA, Radio Free Europe----
Mr. Melia. Yes, these are very valuable. They continue to
provide important voices of honest reporting that is accessed
by the Ukrainian people. It is very important to continue those
services.
The Chairman. Are we intending to send any election
monitors, or to give resources to entities that have long been
established as election monitors in countries?
Mr. Melia. OPORA, which is the network of domestic election
monitors in Ukraine that has been supported, trained by the
National Democratic Institute since the mid-1990s, has been
very active on the ground around the recent elections. They
provide important honest reporting. It complements the work of
the OSCE's Office of Democratic Initiatives and Human Rights,
which has also monitored these processes, and gives us a huge
wealth of information that enables us to comment in an informed
way about the election processes.
As you recall around the parliamentary elections a year and
a half ago, we said that the elections represented a step
backward from the quality of the election that brought Viktor
Yanukovych to office in 2010. And that was based on the
findings of the ODIHR mission that was there and of the
domestic monitors led by OPORA. They continue to be very brave,
very active, very honest watchdogs, and we continue to support
them financially and politically.
The Chairman. Well, let me just say, before I turn to
Senator Corker, that if the Yanukovych government continues to
act against its citizens as we have seen thus far, then I am
not sure that we will wait for the State Department to look at
sanctions and visa revocations against those committing such
acts. The committee, and certainly the Chair, is going to
entertain legislation that will do exactly that.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thank you both as witnesses.
I think that many of us, after watching the administration
throw itself in Russia's arms during the Syrian conflict, have
watched, with big question marks, relative to what we are
actually willing to do to end up with a foreign policy that may
be a counter to where Russia is.
Last summer, when Russia placed these economic extortions--
put those in place in Ukraine on exports--do you think that,
had the United States stood more fully beside Ukraine, they
might have, maybe, had greater strength and been more willing
to go ahead and side with the association agreement, versus
taking the steps that they took?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I think there were many reasons
why President Yanukovych decided to take a pause after spending
6 months advertising and encouraging his people to want to go
to Europe. One of the main concerns that we had throughout the
fall, as we watched the preparations, or lack thereof, by the
government for the Vilnius summit, was the vulnerability of the
Ukrainian economy, not only, and not even primarily, because of
the pressure some of the big companies came under from their
northern neighbor, but because of years of financial
mismanagement of the economy and lack of willingness to really,
as I said, roll up sleeves with the IMF and fix some of the
fundamental problems. So, the degree to which Russia had the
ability to bring Ukraine under economic pressure was very much
a symptom of the fact that Ukraine was so economically fragile.
We worked very intensively with the Ukrainian Government
throughout the summer and fall to try to get them back into a
dialogue with the IMF. I was involved with that. Secretary
Kerry was involved with that. They did make some initial
efforts, but they were nowhere near the kinds of intensive
consultations that the IMF would have needed, to be supportive.
And we began ringing the alarm bell increasingly loudly,
throughout October and November, that, without more economic
stability, in the event that Ukraine signed, the pressure
could, in fact, be very, very dangerous for Ukraine, which was,
at that point, within weeks of financial default.
So, our position all the way through was that IMF reform
and the EU Association Agreement needed to go hand in hand.
Senator Corker. Yes.
Ambassador Nuland. But, unfortunately, that did not prevail
in Ukrainian thinking.
Senator Corker. So, look, I appreciate the effort that you,
personally, have put forth, and I know you have placed a lot of
emphasis on this, especially in the last several months. But,
why did we not criticize Russia openly and strongly when they
put forth this economic coercion they put forth? Why did we not
do that? It just does not seem like the place the United States
would typically be when a country basically extorts another
country, a country that we are trying to work with, a country
that is so important to shaping that part of the world. Why did
not we speak out strongly when that occurred?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, we certainly did. Secretary
Kerry did. I did. I testified before the European Subcommittee,
in November, and spoke out quite forcefully with regard to what
Russia was up to. We also spoke to them privately throughout
this period.
Again, there were a lot of vulnerabilities on the Ukrainian
side, as well, but nobody condoned what Russia was up to. And
we do not, today.
Senator Corker. I will just have to say that the
administration has a big megaphone, and it was not used in this
case.
Let me just say along those same lines, I think many of us
are really disappointed that the administration did not come
forth with a list--the Magnitsky List--that we all expected to
be out by the end of this year. Can you tell us what is
happening, between us and our relationship with Russia, where
we continue to turn our head, and we do not do those things
that are in law that Congress has put forth? What is keeping
the administration from going ahead and naming people--we are
hearing names on the list that are supposed to come out, and
somehow they are tied to this and they are tied to other
things. What is it that is keeping the administration from
doing those things that, under law, it is supposed to do,
relative to Russia?
Ambassador Nuland. Well, Senator, as you know, we submitted
our Magnitsky report in the middle of December, as we were
required to do. We are continuing to look at names that could
be added to the list, and we will continue that process in the
weeks ahead.
Senator Corker. Well, I think history is on our side, and I
think that, eventually, Ukraine will associate itself with the
West. But, I will just have to say, as an observer, as somebody
who has been fairly deeply involved in foreign policy over the
last 7 years, what has happened between us and Russia ever
since August seems to have affected our ability to weigh in on
issues that are clearly in our national interest and clearly in
the West's national interest. And I know that, again, you
certainly have put forth tremendous effort, over especially the
last several months, regarding this issue. But, Ukraine is an
incredibly important country. It is a country that, if we can
cause them to more fully associate with the West, could well be
the thing that helps shape the way policies are inside Russia,
itself. It is an incredibly important country.
And, while I appreciate your efforts, and I certainly
appreciate Senator McCain and Murphy being there at an
incredibly important time, I do not think that our country has
put forth policies, nor stood up in a way that it should in
recent times, at a moment in time where there was a possibility
of something happening right now that could have been
incredibly beneficial to the people of Ukraine, beneficial to
us, as a nation, and beneficial overall to Western values.
But, I thank you for your efforts and I look forward to
continuing this dialogue.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here this afternoon.
I wonder if one of you could speak to the opposition that
has been demonstrating, and if they have a coordinated strategy
for what they want to accomplish, short of the association
agreement, and are they seeking to win power in the elections?
What is their real interest, here, and how successful do you
think they can be?
Ambassador Nuland. I would say that the events of November
and December have certainly been unifying for the opposition,
both in terms of its obligations, as it sees it, to the
Ukrainian people and to try to meet their aspirations, but also
in terms of their ability to work together. In the
conversations that we have had with them, they are focused on
presenting a united slate for the 2015 elections, they are
focused on protecting the electoral environment and the free
media environment between now and then, which, as I said, is an
area of quite a bit of concern as we see a slow and steady
effort to poison the democratic body politic across Ukraine.
So, they are very much focused on that and trying to ensure
that they expose efforts to intimidate NGOs or journalists or
activists or any of those things, or otherwise dismantle the
structures of a free electoral environment.
They are also focused very much on the economy, because
they know that if the current government does not take the hard
steps to engage with the IMF and heal the systemic and
structural problems in the Ukrainian economy, that anybody who
wins the elections will inherit that problem. So, they are
focused very much on trying to understand Ukraine's problems,
trying to understand what this very nontransparent deal with
Russia may do, over the medium and longer term, to Ukraine's
choices so that they can present an alternative to the
Ukrainian people.
Mr. Melia. Can I add one point to that, Senator----
Senator Shaheen. Sure.
Mr. Melia [continuing]. To broaden it beyond the political
opposition, the parties who are seeking to win a majority and
control of the government?
Most of the people that came out in the Maidan after the
announcement on the European integration was announced did not
come out with partisan motives. In fact, most of them are not
associated with one or another political party. They were
people that were angry and frustrated that what they thought
was a trajectory in fits and starts toward European integration
being upended abruptly by their President. So, they came out to
express their unhappiness with that. And the people who
initially organized it--there was not a master plan, because
they did not anticipate the announcement. But, over the weeks,
it has become more and more organized, more and more kinds of
groups have come out and participated, including political
parties. But, most of the people that came out in those
demonstrations were not party-oriented. And I think that speaks
to a broader longing in the Ukrainian people for modernization,
for fundamental freedoms, for European integration. And whether
the alternative political parties on the scene will guarantee
that or provide that, I think, remains for those parties to
demonstrate. And they have not done--you know, they are working
on that, but it is not a done deal yet.
So, I think when we think about opposition to the
government, we need to think about it more broadly than in
partisan political terms.
Senator Shaheen. I do not disagree with that. I am just
thinking about where they go from here, in terms of those
demonstrations, because just demonstrating, as you point out,
is not going to solve the problem. We have got to figure out
what happens next and what more can we do, in the United
States, to help move to the next stage of how to address the
situation there.
Mr. Melia. Well, let me speak up a bit for Ukrainian
sovereignty, because that is ultimately what this is about. And
it is partially in response to Senator Corker's earlier
comments that I would say we need to keep in mind that this is
about respecting Ukrainian sovereignty, letting Ukrainians work
this out, to the extent they can. We do not want this to be a
tug-of-war with Russia over Ukraine. We are trying to
demonstrate a different opportunity. It is not just East or
West, us or them. This is about a completely different model.
We are not going to bludgeon or pressure the Ukrainians into
associating with us. The Russians may want to do that. It is
not in our interests to do that.
We have an open door to the West, we provide all kinds of
long-term opportunities for them, and the Ukrainian Government
can either choose to be bullied by one of its neighbors or they
can choose to go through the open door to the West. That is the
choice that has been presented to the Ukrainian people. There
is a short-term response to pressure that we have seen the
President of Ukraine do. There is a longer term decision to be
made by the Ukrainian people, through their political process,
which we hope will play out over the next year and beyond, in
which these kinds of things can be debated and discussed
publicly, and people will make their decision for who they want
to govern them, based on the policy choices they present.
We cannot insist that they do what we want. That is not the
approach that we are offering them. We are offering them a
chance to be a sovereign, independent country that makes its
own decisions.
Senator Shaheen. Well, and certainly I appreciate that.
What I am really asking is, What more can we do to help ensure
that they have that opportunity? Because that is the real
challenge.
Let me ask a different question, because I do not want this
panel to end without asking about Yulia Tymoshenko and what her
status is and whether we think there is any chance that she is
going to be released before the elections in 2015--and again,
what more we and the European community and the Ukrainian
people might do to help ensure that that happens.
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, we raise Mrs. Tymoshenko's
status in every meeting with every Ukrainian that we have. I
have personally spoken to President Yanukovych about it in both
of the long and intense meetings I have had with him.
We are continuing to encourage the Ukrainian Government to
release her to Germany for the medical treatment that she so
desperately needs. We have also made the link that this would
send a very strong signal to the world about their commitment
to a European path and to meet those final requirements of the
EU; and it would probably have a positive economic impact, as
well, on the Ukrainian economy. But, to date, the President has
not seen fit to take those steps.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Melia. And I should mention that I have visited Mrs.
Tymoshenko in her hospital prison in Kharkiv, in the eastern
part of Ukraine, and both our recent Ambassadors, both
Ambassador Tefft and Ambassador Pyatt, have also been out there
to demonstrate our--at a very serious way--our concern for her
situation. And, along with our European colleagues, who have
the lead on the EU association agreement, obviously, this has
been a central part of that discussion. This has been very
central to our engagement and the Europeans' engagement with
the Government of Ukraine.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Before I call on Senator McCain, let me just
say, I do not think you meant this--or maybe you did. I agree
that we all respect Ukrainian sovereignty. We are not seeking a
tug of war with Russia. But, there is a difference between an
open door, as you described it, full of opportunity for the
Ukrainian people, that the United States and the West presents,
and the economic coercion and intimidation that the Russians
pursue. And pushing back on the economic coercion and
intimidation, in my mind, is not a tug of war, it is creating
the space for Ukrainians to decide their own future.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
associate myself with what you just said.
Mr. Melia, this is not a high school student-body election,
this is a country that wants to be European. They do not want
to be Russian. That is what this is all about.
That is what EU means to them. And the Russians have used
energy, they have even cut off chocolate, they have bullied,
they have supported the corruption, which is rampant in
Ukraine. My colleagues may not know that the son of the
President of Ukraine was a dentist, is now a billionaire, lives
in a $100 million home.
So, what this is all about, sir, is not about the Ukrainian
people decide for themselves, this is about whether we will
stand up for the Ukrainian people, who have been brutalized in
demonstrations. The incarceration--I am glad you went to see
Yulia Tymoshenko. But, the fact is, she should not be in
prison. That is fact. And so, I am somewhat taken aback by
your, ``Well, it is sort of up to the Ukrainian people.'' We
want to be assisting, morally, the Ukrainian people for seeking
what we want everybody on this earth to have. And so, it is not
just up to the Ukrainian people. They cry out for our
assistance and our moral support in a struggle which is totally
unfair, which has been characterized by brutal crackdowns of
demonstrators, and, recently, some leaders that I met with are
now hospitalized. So, you are either incredibly naive or you
are misleading the committee, one of the two.
Secretary Nuland, I want to thank you for what you did.
Senator Murphy and I had an incredible experience there. The
people of Ukraine appreciated, very much, your moral support
that you provided them. And I was very proud to have you as our
Nation's representative, providing the moral support to the
people who were demonstrating in freezing cold weather,
incredibly difficult conditions.
So, I guess my first question is, to you, Secretary Nuland,
Is not it true that the Russians have bullied, they have used
energy, they have used embargoes on certain products, including
chocolate, and they have--that Mr. Putin really, really
believes that Russia without Ukraine is an Eastern power, and,
with Ukraine, is a Western power? And there is a lot at stake
here, and it is in United States national security interests.
And maybe--as Senator Corker pointed out--maybe we ought to be
standing up to the Russians and supporting these people,
including a list, if it is necessary, of sanctions, in the case
of further violence inflicted on the demonstrators. Would you
agree with that?
Ambassador Nuland. Certainly, we have been absolutely clear
and we would agree with Senate Resolution 319 that the
Ukrainian people and their right to peaceful assembly must be
protected at all costs. And we have been very, very clear with
the government, not only at my level, but at the Secretary of
State's level, Secretary of Defense's level, and other people
who have been in contact, that any further serious efforts by
the government to repress their own people will be met with,
with a firm response by the United States.
Senator McCain. And would sanctions be one of the
considerations?
Ambassador Nuland. As I said, Senator, that and other tools
are on the table; yes.
May I just make a point about the choice that Ukrainians
have to make? I think we are all making the same point, which
is, it is in United States interest to help the people of
Ukraine preserve the opportunity to have a choice for a
European future. And that is what we have to do, particularly
as we head toward these elections. That is about speaking out
against further violence, that is about supporting a free, fair
media environment, a free, fair electoral environment, so that
they can actually judge this government and its behavior at the
ballot box----
Senator McCain. So, it is not a tug of war. It is standing
up for the principles of the--we want every free people
throughout the world to be able to determine their own future
without having demonstrators beaten up, without embargoes,
without the energy card being played to cut off energy in the
middle of the winter, as happened in the past. And this is all
about Mr. Putin's desire to restore the old near abroad, the
old Russian empire. And he has done the same thing in Moldova,
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and all around the periphery of
Russia. And it is part--as Senator Corker pointed out, it is
part of the very aggressive behavior that Vladimir Putin
displays, and we reward his Secretary, Mr. Lavrov, with funny
little gag gifts. I do not get it.
I would like to, again, recognize Boris Tarasyuk and also
the Ukrainian Ambassador, Ambassador Motsyk, who is here also.
Again, I would like to ask you, Secretary Nuland, Do you
think that there is a path now for Yanukovych to allow a free
and fair election? And what do you make of the decision of the
upper court that says that Vitali Klitschko is ineligible for
running for President in 2015?
Ambassador Nuland. Again, Senator, I think when you ask how
we can help, how the EU can help, it is to focus our attention
on ensuring that the electoral environment is free and fair.
That is going to be a very, very difficult task, given these
moves that we are already seeing to intimidate journalists and
to constrict the free media environment, to manipulate local
electoral councils, these kinds of things. So, the assistance
that we are putting into Ukraine--and we are increasing it in
the areas of free media and electoral support--will all be in
the direction of trying to prevent efforts to pervert the
electoral environment before 2015.
With regard to the current ongoing court situation for Mr.
Klitschko, this is a very familiar playbook in this part of the
world, to try to use the courts to manipulate the slate of
opposition candidates, et cetera. We are watching this case
extremely closely. We had observers in the court today from our
Embassy in Kiev.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to say that we thank you for
what you did in Ukraine. The people were very grateful. And I
was very proud to join Senator Murphy on what was, for me, a
truly unforgettable experience. We thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see both of you here.
I thank Senator McCain for allowing me to join him on what
was really an amazing visit to see hundreds of thousands of
people on that square, also knowing that those numbers were in
the tens of thousands before the crackdown, and it was in the
face of that brutal activity from the administration that
people poured out into the streets in record numbers and,
although the numbers have diminished, are still pretty
substantial in the past few weeks.
I want to just echo the comments of Senator McCain. I do
not think Yanukovych can win a free and fair election, no
matter what choices, what tacking to the left and to the right
and to the East and to the West he may do, if it is truly an
open election. And, obviously, our most important task here, if
we want to truly support the Ukrainian people, is to do
everything within our power to track these individuals, once
they leave the Maidan, once they go back home, to make sure
that they are not quietly spirited away, imprisoned,
intimidated so that they do not participate in the 2015
elections.
Yanukovych is wrong to believe that there are no strings
attached to this deal with Russia. He looks at the price that
he was going to have to pay to do a deal with the EU and the
IMF, and he just thought that it was too high, given the
already difficult electoral prospects he faces in 2015. And he
perceives that there is a lower price for him, in the short
run, to do the deal with Russia. And, of course, that is not
true, ultimately, though Russia may not impose strings at the
outset, will all of a sudden start to meddle, on a weekly and
daily basis, in the affairs of the Ukraine once they get their
financial mitts into the country.
But, it strikes me that, at some points during this
process, both the EU and the IMF have acted as if there was not
a choice for the Ukraine to make, that they were sort of used
to doing deals--in the IMF, for instance; in the EU, to an
extent--were used to doing bailout packages and financial
packages with countries in the EU that did not have a choice.
And, you know, Yanukovych greeted Senator McCain and I with
about an hour-and-a-half lecture on all of the abuse that
Ukraine has taken from the EU, and most of his litany was
without merit.
But, my question is this. Is there more that can be done,
on behalf of the EU and the IMF, to try to work with the
Ukraine in the coming months to answer some of the concerns
which they may have that are legitimate, recognizing that this
is not a zero-sum game, that they do have an alternative, and
that alternative will continue to get sweeter and sweeter as
the conditions get tougher and tougher from the IMF and the EU?
And what can the United States do to work with the IMF and the
EU to try to help answer some of the legitimate concerns that
may come from Ukraine?
Ambassador Nuland. Well, thank you, Senator. And again,
thanks to both of you for your leadership on that vital
weekend. I really do believe that having both of you present in
a bipartisan way on the square that weekend may have prevented
violence.
First, to your point about the Russian bailout, if I may.
You know, nobody knows what the terms really are, because they
were not made transparent to the public, and certainly not to
the Ukrainian public. And I would, as we do with the
Ukrainians, draw your attention to the fact that one of the
terms is that it will be renegotiated every 3 months, which,
again, means that, at every
3-month period, Ukraine could conceivably face default again,
unless it goes down the tougher-medicine-but-better-reward
track of the IMF.
I think if, in fact, we have a Ukrainian Government that is
willing to come back into a serious conversation with the EU
and the IMF, what we need is a phased roadmap of restoring
Ukraine to economic health, as the EU also works on how the IMF
deal and the EU's DCFTA might mesh together to ensure that
Ukraine has other options than its extreme dependence on the
Russian market. And that is what the EU is offering, but it
requires some tough steps, and this government has not been
willing to take them.
Senator Murphy. For all of the attention as to what did not
happen at the Eastern Partnership summit, something did happen,
which was that Georgia and Moldova, under very similar
pressure, decided that they were going to move forward with
their association with the EU. There is going to be a process,
here, where the Ukraine looks to see what happens in Georgia
and Moldova, Ukrainian citizens look to see what happens to the
economies of Georgia and Moldova. And the look back will go the
other way, as well; people in Georgia and Moldova are going to
watch to see what happens in the Ukraine, having made a
different decision.
What can the United States do, what can the international
community do, to stand with Georgia and Moldova to make sure
that they are a shining example of what good can occur, both
politically, from a human rights perspective, from an economic
perspective, when you make the choice to join with the EU?
Ambassador Nuland. Well, as you said, Senator, if all goes
well for Moldova and Georgia, they will be able to sign both
agreements, perhaps as early as next year, and, certainly in
the case of Moldova and maybe even in the case of Georgia, be
enjoying visa-free travel and DCFTA rights with the EU before
the end of 2014. That will completely transform the economic
opportunity for those countries, when people across the country
can trade freely. And it will also, we believe, have an impact
on thinking in the separatist area of Transnistria, in the
occupied areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as they
understand that their governments are offering a path, an
opportunity to work with Europe; whereas that they had not had
before. So, it is an extremely positive development.
We are working with Moldova to try to diversify their
economic base. Even as the EU opens markets, we are working to
open U.S. markets, working on reverse trade, delegation support
from the Commerce Department. We are also working on energy
independence for Moldova. Secretary Kerry, as you know, made a
stop in Moldova to give them a boost. Similarly, with Georgia
we are very focused on efforts to destabilize minority areas
and other parts of Georgia, which is part of the pressure
playbook. I was in Georgia, about a month ago, to encourage the
government and the opposition, now that they have had good
elections, to come together around a strong economic program,
and to take full advantage and speed up their integration with
the EU, including doing what they need to do to get visa-free
as soon as possible.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, just one last comment, which is that we are
incredibly well-served by you, Secretary Nuland, but also by
our Ambassador there. Ambassador Pyatt, under very difficult
circumstances, has acquitted himself very well, and it is,
frankly, an advertisement for the importance of this committee
moving very quickly and expeditiously on nominations, because
we were able to get him nominated, put in place before the
summer break, which gave him enough time to develop
relationships that have come in very handy in the middle of a
crisis. And so, I would commend the chairman for the way in
which he has moved nominations. In this case, it really made a
difference.
The Chairman. Thank you.
One last question, Madam Secretary. Analysts have asserted
that Russia is trying to obtain control over critical
infrastructure--Ukrainian infrastructure, that is. Do we have
any information or idea of whether the Russians have acquired
control over critical Ukrainian infrastructure as a result of
the Putin-Yanukovych deal?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, as you know, this has been part
of the 20-year struggle of Ukraine for sovereignty, efforts to
resist outside purchase of key critical infrastructure.
Frankly, we do not have the details on this Ukraine-Russia
deal. The Ukrainian Government tells us that they have not made
those kinds of concessions, but we are not in a position to
independently verify that.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you both for your testimony and
your service. I can see that your time as the State
Department's spokesperson has honed the conciseness of some of
your responses. And so, we will look forward to engaging with
you in other parts of your portfolio.
And, with that, you are both excused from the committee's
hearing and we will bring up our second panelist, who needs,
really--
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Let me say, as I said at the outset, Dr.
Brzezinski needs no introduction, certainly not to this
committee. Suffice it to say that he sees the world as a grand
chessboard, as reflected in the title of one of his many books.
He is, in my view, one of the world's most insightful foreign
policy analysts. He brings to the table a clear-eyed
geopolitical view. And, as they say in chess, he sees the whole
board.
We appreciate your willingness to share your insights and
your expertise with the committee. Your full statement will be
included in the record, Dr. Brzezinski, and we invite you now
to share your thoughts.
STATEMENT OF DR. ZBIGNIEW K. BRZEZINSKI, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR, COUNSELOR AND TRUSTEE, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC
AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Brzezinski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senators. I am most impressed by the work you have been doing
on this issue. I have listened to the earlier part of this
testimony here, and it seems to me that all of you appreciate
the historic, as well as the strategic, importance of the issue
that we are discussing.
My own general message is simple. A democratic, sovereign,
and European Ukraine is what the Ukrainian people want and
deserve. Such a Ukraine will encourage Russia to become an
important post-imperial partner of the West as a whole. And
that is a very important strategic point. Hence, support for
Ukrainian aspirations is not political warfare against Russia,
but is, in fact, favoring Russia's long-term interests. And we
have to keep that in mind, that larger framework.
A Eurasian Union, such as the one that Putin aspires to
create, held together by pressure and motivated by nostalgia,
is not a long-term solution for Russia's own socioeconomic and
geopolitical dilemmas. Hence, sooner or later, the current
authoritarianism driven by imperial ambitions in Russia will
fail, not only because Ukraine is hesitant and opposed;
Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan are not eager to become, again,
camouflaged colonies.
With that in mind, let me make just a few general
suggestions. And, conceivably, some of them may be redundant,
because I do not have access to all that is going or is being
discussed within the administration.
First, my suggestion is that we should encourage all EU
Parliaments to pass resolutions hailing the courage and
determination of this new, younger Ukrainian generation which
has shown itself to be so devoted to its new sovereignty, and
we should express our strong support for it. And this should be
done by other democratic assemblies as part of the historical
record. It is important for the Ukrainian people to feel that
they are not alone.
We should also deplore all forms of blackmail, bribery, or
pressure designed to limit Ukrainian sovereignty. Our
admiration for the heroes of the Maidan should be clearly
emphasized, and they should be conscious of our identification
with them. And I know that some members of this committee have
been in Kiev during the most dramatic moments.
Ukrainian national patriotism is a recently reborn
phenomenon, but it is fervent and it is authentic. Putin likes
to say that Ukrainians are really Russians, but he overlooks
one very simple fact: Today's Ukraine harkens back directly to
Kiev's Russia. That is to say, to Kiev of 1,000 years ago in
which the Kingdom of Rus, which is the Ruthenians, today called
Ukrainians, was an authentic European entity. It is little
known that the then-ruling King of France proposed that the
princess, the daughter of the King of Ukraine, become his wife,
and she traveled eventually to Paris and became the Queen of
France. It is the Ukrainians who are the really authentic
sources of Ruthenian, as well as Russian, identity. Ruthenians
being the older word for Ukrainians.
Secondly, we should encourage the emergence in Ukraine of a
visible and standing committee for national unity and
independence, with politically and effective, defined
leadership that can engage, if the opportunity arises, in an
ongoing dialogue with President Yanukovych regarding Ukraine's
long-term future. We know for a fact that some oligarchs who
support Yanukovych would be interested in a dialogue with the
opposition. Not all of the oligarchs are devoted to the idea of
Ukraine being essentially a subprovince of a larger empire, and
they have their own interests in promoting Ukrainian
independence and closer ties with the West.
In brief, we should not strive to polarize the situation in
Ukraine, but we should promote the opportunity for a serious
dialogue with a political entity that authoritatively speaks
for the will of the politically awakened Ukrainian nation, and
encourage them also to prepare, perhaps, for the free elections
in 2015, though it is not at all certain, at this stage, that
they, indeed, will be free.
Third, the United States should use its influence, as I
hope it is using it, in IMF, in the World Bank, in the various
G8 or G20 assemblies, to explore what could be done to help
Ukraine expand its relationship with the EU while remaining
Russia's good neighbor even under the currently contrived
arrangements--not as a satellite; but, nonetheless, the EU
should encourage whatever additional arrangements are feasible.
And we should be exploring ways, if there are any, by which the
WTO could help to expose economic intimidation, which is not in
keeping with its rules, and communicate its sense of concern to
the party responsible for generating it. Perhaps there could be
some steps taken to facilitate preferential access for
Ukrainians seeking to study and work in Europe.
Fourth, we should keep in mind that the longer run issue
is, What will Russia become as China increases its influence in
the former Soviet Central Asia? We should keep reminding the
Russian people and their leaders that we respect Russia's
European identity and culture, and that Russia's true destiny
is also to be a major European state in a larger democratic
West. We should make it clear that we seek neither Russia's
isolation nor fragmentation, but Russia's evolution to what is
a genuine democracy.
One way or another, that day will come. Putin stands in the
way today with his nostalgic dream of a new empire called the
Eurasian Union. But, the fact is that such a prospect is not
realistic. None of the would-be members of the Eurasian Union
truly desire to limit their sovereignty, to cede it to Russia,
to participate in the creation of a new union which revokes
memories of the recently disappeared union, not to mention the
older-still Russian empire.
In brief--and I conclude on this--we need a constructive,
open-ended, long-term policy for Ukraine, as well as a long-
term option for Russia that may follow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brzezinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
Mr. Chairman, Senators. My own general message is simple: a
democratic, sovereign and European Ukraine is what the Ukrainian people
want and deserve. Such a Ukraine will encourage Russia to become an
important post-imperial partner of the West as a whole. And that's a
very important strategic point. Hence, support for Ukrainian
aspirations is not political warfare against Russia but is, in fact,
favoring Russia's long-term interests. And we have to keep that in
mind, that larger framework.
A Eurasian union, such as the one that Putin aspires to create,
held together by pressure and motivated by nostalgia, is not a long-
term solution for Russia's own socioeconomic and geopolitical dilemmas.
Hence, sooner or later the current authoritarianism driven by imperial
ambitions in Russia will fail, not only because Ukraine is hesitant and
opposed; neither Kazakhstan nor Uzbekistan are eager to again become
camouflaged colonies.
With that in mind, let me make just a few general suggestions. And
conceivably, some of them may be redundant because I do not have access
to all that is going or is being discussed within the administration.
First, my suggestion is that we should encourage all EU parliaments
to pass resolutions hailing the courage and determination of this new,
younger Ukrainian generation that has just shown itself to be so
devoted to its new sovereignty, and we should express our strong
support for it. And this should be done by other democratic assemblies
as part of the historical record. It is important for the Ukrainian
people to feel that they are not alone.
We should also deplore all forms of blackmail, bribery or pressure
designed to limit Ukrainian sovereignty. Our admiration for the heroes
of the Maidan should be clearly emphasized and they should be conscious
of our identification with them. And I know that some members of this
committee have been in Kiev during the most dramatic moments.
Ukrainian national patriotism is a recently reborn phenomenon, but
it is fervent and it is authentic. Putin likes to say that Ukrainians
are really Russians, but he overlooks one very simple fact: today's
Ukraine harkens back directly to Kiev's Russia, that is to say, to
Kievan Rus of 1,000 years ago.
Secondly, we should encourage the emergence in Ukraine of a visible
standing committee for national unity and independence, with
politically and effectively defined leadership that can engage, if the
opportunity arises, in an ongoing dialogue with President Yanukovych
regarding Ukraine's long-term future. We know for a fact that some
oligarchs who support Yanukovych would be interested in a dialogue with
the opposition. Not all of the oligarchs are devoted to the idea of
Ukraine being essentially a subprovince of a larger empire, and they
have their own interests in promoting Ukrainian independence and closer
ties with the West.
In brief, we should not strive to polarize the situation in
Ukraine, but we should promote the opportunity for a serious dialogue
with the political entity that authoritatively speaks for the will of
the politically awakened Ukrainian nation, and we should encourage them
also to prepare perhaps for the free elections in 2015, though it is
not at all certain at this stage that such elections indeed will be
free.
Third, the United States should use its influence, as I hope it is
using it, in the IMF, in the World Bank, and in the various G8 or G20
assemblies to explore what could be done to help Ukraine expand its
relationship with the EU while remaining Russia's good neighbor, even
under the currently contrived arrangements, though not as a satellite.
And we should be exploring ways, if there are any, by which the WTO
could help to expose economic intimidation, which is not in keeping
with its rules, and communicate its sense of concern to the party
responsible for generating it. Perhaps there could also be some steps
taken to facilitate preferential access for Ukrainians seeking to study
and work in Europe.
Fourth, we should keep in mind that the longer run issue is what
will Russia become as China increases its influence in the former
Soviet Central Asia.
We should keep reminding the Russian people and their leaders that
we respect Russia's European identity and culture and that Russia's
true destiny is also to be a major European state in the larger
democratic West. We should make it clear that we seek neither Russia's
isolation nor fragmentation, but Russia's evolution towards a genuine
democracy.
One way or another, that day will come. Putin stands in the way
today with his nostalgic dream of a new empire called the Eurasian
Union. But the fact is that such a prospect is not realistic. None of
the would-be members of the Eurasian Union truly desire to limit their
sovereignty, to cede it to Russia, or to participate in the creation of
a new union which evokes memories of the recently disappeared union,
not to mention the older-still Russian Empire.
In brief, and I'll conclude on this: we need a constructive, open-
ended, long-term policy for Ukraine as well as a long-term option for
Russia that may follow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Brzezinski,
for those insights.
Let me ask you, in your book you suggest that Russia cannot
be a democracy if it is an empire, and it cannot be fully an
empire if it lacks control of the Ukraine. Is that a view that
you think is driving Moscow's behavior toward Ukraine now?
Dr. Brzezinski. Yes, I think; certainly the present
leadership feels convinced that, without Ukraine, the
recreation of some form of supernational union--or, call it,
simply, an empire--is not possible. This is why it is such a
strategic stake for Putin.
What he underestimates, however, in my view, are the
consequences of 20 years of independence, these consequences we
saw so dramatically and so admirable on the Maidan, where that
younger generation of Ukrainians who have grown up in an
independent state stood up and said, ``No matter how cold or
how difficult or how dangerous, we stand for independence,
because we treasure our independence.'' What is less visible
but is also true, that that kind of sentiment pervades
increasingly the elites in such significant entities as
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but also in the other smaller former
Soviet states.
To put it simply and in very human terms, who does not
prefer to be a President of his own country, or a general in
his own army, or a foreign minister in his own government, or
an ambassador in Washington representing his sovereignty rather
than to be officials of an entity in which they are
subordinate? This is a normal human reaction. Nationalism is a
deeply contagious social force, and, once awakened, it is
almost impossible to sweep it back into the box.
And what we are now seeing in Ukraine is a long-delayed
awakening. But, it was coming. One could see it during the 20th
century. One could see it during the days of the Gulag and the
Holomodor, the starving to death of millions of Ukrainians by
deliberate decisions in Moscow. But, now it is a pervasing
reality, and particularly among the younger Ukrainians. They
feel themselves to be Ukrainians. And this is why Putin betrays
such an abysmal historical ignorance when he says, as he did
just a few weeks ago, that Ukraine and Russia are just but one
nation. And, of course, the Russians are the older brother in
that nation, according to him.
The Chairman. And the flip side of that--and I share your
views--but, the flip side of that, so we understand the
totality of the importance of this, is that--could we ever see
or perceive a democratization of Russia if they were--be able
to achieve their goals of having Ukraine join with them in this
sphere?
Dr. Brzezinski. Well, I have no doubt that if Ukraine is
suborned and subordinated, it marks a turning point and Russia
becomes, in effect, an empire. My own personal view is that,
first of all, I do not think that is going to happen, in total,
even if there is retrogression today. And, secondly--and
obviously this is speculative and is a question of judgment--my
gut feeling is that Putin's nostalgia for the past, which
drives this aspiration for a supernational union, is simply
divorced from political and socioeconomic realities. Russia
today is no longer an imperially motivated entity mindlessly
seeking imperial status the way, let us say, the Nazis did in
order to compensate for their defeat in the first World War. It
is no longer driven by an ideology which demands
supernationality as the basis for superpower status.
There is a nationalist element in Russia to which he is
appealing that is retrogressive, but there is also a new
manifestation in Russia which is gradually becoming, in my
view, more significant: the emergence of an increasingly
internationally connected, internationally educated, in many
cases, middle class, particularly in the major cities of
Russia--Moscow, Saint Petersburg, others--
a middle class which increasingly identifies itself with more
common Western values, including democracy, freedom of travel,
freedom to read what one wishes, freedom to say what one
desires, and freedom, eventually, to express one's political
preferences. That is a new reality, and it is becoming
stronger.
So, my gut feeling--and I have been a student of Soviet and
Russian affairs now almost all of my life--is that this quest
for a supernational union is directly linked to the longevity
of the President of Russia. And if he fades from the scene, for
one reason or another, politically or physically, I think there
is going to be an accelerated turn toward a redefinition of
Russia's place in the world, for two reasons: one, which I have
already mentioned--namely, the impulse of a middle class that
sees itself part of the West and is increasingly educated in
the West, in addition to traveling to it; and secondly, the
extraordinary significant rise in the power and significance of
China, and particularly now, increasingly so in Central Asia.
The Russians are building, kilometer by kilometer, new roads
spanning the former Russian Central Asia--roads, railroads,
investments, increasingly matching and outstripping the
Russians, investment in the real estate and in the natural
resources of these newly independent states.
Now, these states are ambivalent, because they are fearful
of the Chinese, they are so huge and powerful. But, at the same
time, they know that they create leverage which gives them room
for self-assertion.
I know the Presidents of the two most important Central
Asian countries--Kazakhstan, extraordinarily rich in natural
resources, and Uzbekistan, the center of Islamic self-awareness
that is mixed with nationalism. Neither of these two leaders
wants to be a satellite. In fact, for that reason, Nazarbayev,
who is very careful in maneuvering between China and Russia,
proposed to Putin--and Putin was smart enough to accept--that
Putin's original name of the Eurasian Union be changed to
Eurasian Economic Union, which was an attempt, of course, by
Nazarbayev, to limit what that union really means. In other
words, do not limit our sovereignty. Now, of course, it does
not work that neatly. If you have economic domination, the
other one may be adversely affected.
But, my point simply is this. There is some support for
arrangements for customs union and so forth, because it can be
beneficial two ways, but there is, above all else, in the newly
independent states, including Belarus--it does not have a
notably good democratic record--there is a commitment in all of
them toward self-independence.
The Chairman. Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Doctor, it is always impressive to listen to you and
to get your insights on issues that are happening throughout
the world; and certainly, in this part of the world, you are
quite an expert. So, I thank you for your comments.
And I know you listed a number of steps that should be
taken to reinforce the Ukrainian people, and you have talked
about the values that they share with the West, the values that
middle-income people in Russia share with the West, and just
the natural alliance that should be there.
Many of us have watched the administration since August,
and watch as we deal with Russia in ways that we do, and
understand that the Russian people, in many ways, should be
oriented toward us, and that there are issues of commonality
that we should be pursuing. At the same time, as we watch what
is happening, we also, it seems, see a deference to Russia, in
so many cases, beginning with Syria stepping into their arms.
And I know you were just talking about how we need to
fertilize and we need to encourage the Ukrainian people to
continue to move ahead. We hope there are going to be free
elections. I know the standard there is for opponents to be
arrested and not be available for election, which makes it more
difficult. But, what would be your guidance to United States
outward comments and policy relative to Ukraine right now, and
pushback? And what effect does that actually have, if you will,
on the Ukrainian people and in an outcome there?
Dr. Brzezinski. I think we should learn from the experience
of Poland's emancipation from Soviet control in the late 1980s,
early 1990s. What emerged in Poland was a national movement for
independence, somewhat like the Maidan, although Maidan has not
institutionalized itself. In Poland, it became
institutionalized in a so-called Solidarity Movement with a
dramatic leader, who may not have been the most senior leader
originally, perhaps not always the most intelligent leader, but
the most effective political leader. And it was under his
leadership that eventually that movement forced the ruling
Communist regime to negotiate, to negotiate an arrangement of
accommodation which then was transformed into, eventually, a
democracy, a Western-type democracy of Poland today in the EU
and in NATO.
Ukraine needs a clear-cut national alternative. I know that
there are a number of outstanding Ukrainian leaders who have
participated in what has been transpiring, and some with great
personal courage and sacrifice. But, the biggest sacrifice that
needs to be made is that all of them, but one, have to agree on
``a one'' that will be increasingly the symbol of an
alternative. Because you are dealing with an entrenched regime
which can use force and bribery to stay in power, and has
Russian support. You need to have a figure that articulates
your aspirations, symbolizes you, and becomes a focus of global
attention.
The second part of your question pertained to what you
described as our deference to the Russians. I would take some
exception to the word ``deference.'' I do not think we have
really deferred to them. I know what I am about to say is
controversial, but, frankly, I think that Russia's interference
in Syria, to some extent, made it easier for us to avoid
sliding into direct participation in a war which would have
been very damaging to our interests and probably would have
spread more widely and more quickly than is already the case.
So, that is a question of judgment, and we may disagree on
that. But, I think, in any case, what it illustrates is
something more basic than that.
Our relationship with Russia during the cold war was one of
hostility. It was a non-zero-sum game. We win, they lose. They
win, we lose. Today, in many parts of the world, the
relationship is much more mixed. We do not like what they are
doing in Ukraine, but, in the long run, I would like them to
become like Ukraine and pursue the same path. There are many
things they are doing elsewhere that we do not like, but we may
need them, and we do need them in the Middle East. In fact, I
think the chances of stabilizing the Middle East, including in
the forthcoming conference, are greater if, in the process, we
have with us, not only the Europeans, some of whom are very
disliked in the Middle East as former colonial powers, but we
also have with us the Russians, who, in some cases, are not so
disliked, and the Chinese, who are increasingly being an
influence in the Middle East, and they have a growing stake in
a stable Middle East. And that kind of a coalition, I think,
gives us a greater opportunity to pursue arrangements that
mitigate and minimize the danger of conflict spreading out, and
certainly reduces the necessity of us being involved in these
conflicts directly. Because the fact remains that, if we become
involved directly, some people may applaud us, some people may
rub their hands with glee that we are getting stuck, but none
of them are going to help us. And I do not think the United
States is in any position now to duplicate the wars in Iraq or
in Afghanistan with a direct military engagement in the Middle
East.
So, we do need some accommodations even with the Russians
on some issues, just as we disagree with them on other issues--
today, for example, regarding what we were discussing.
Senator Corker. I appreciate your point of view. But, as it
relates to Ukraine, it was just outward economic extortion.
Obviously that is not something that we, in any way, condone,
regardless of the complexities of any situation. And yet, we
really did not speak to that. And I think, for some reasons, it
is because of the other elements that you just alluded to. I
mean, I understand that relationships are complex, and there
are many other things that are occurring. And regardless of how
you view those when it comes to an issue like Ukraine, where
there is no question it was black-and-white extortion, what
should the United States do in those cases? Because it appears
to me that we did ``not much,'' if you will----
Dr. Brzezinski. I tend to----
Senator Corker [continuing]. And I----
Dr. Brzezinski [continuing]. Agree with you.
Senator Corker. What is that?
Dr. Brzezinski. I tend to agree with you on that aspect.
This is why I mentioned, for example, in my testimony, that we
should take a hard look at WTO rules. There are some countries
in the WTO that have behaved that fashion, and we do not need
even to name them right now, but we know who we are talking
about. We should look at the rules and see what is not
acceptable, in terms of formal behavior of WTO members who--to
benefit from the fact that such organizations contribute to
more fluid trade flows and greater access. And we can have
opportunities for limited boycotts, limited bans, and so forth.
I agree with you, it is not either black or white. You can
have different combinations. But, we have to have a sense of
balance about it. I do not favor, at the same time, a
reigniting of the cold war, for example, with Russia, of the
kind that we had with the Soviet Union; in part because we do
need Russia in some other parts of the world, and in part also
because Russia itself is changing.
You heard from me a very sharp criticism of Putin. And I
know that he is an authoritarian, and I know that what he
wishes to create is not good, and I believe it will not
succeed. But, I also know that, today in Moscow, you can read
criticisms of the government, you can read newspapers that
blast official policies, you can watch skits on television that
ridicule the rulers, and so forth. We are dealing with a more
complicated Russia today than the Soviet Union of the past.
Senator Corker. Well, thank you, and I appreciate your
service to our country and your continued involvement in
helping us think through these complex issues.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Dr. Brzezinski.
You know, for all his faults, Yanukovych is a pretty savvy
politician, and he seems to be under the impression that he can
somehow manage a short-term transition of economic aid in
Russia with an eventual long-term association with the EU, and
further seems to be under the belief that he can manage that
eventual transition to Europe without severe repercussions from
Russia; if he keeps them happy for a period of time, maybe they
will not notice if he eventually enters into a roadmap to join
Europe.
And when we were there, I tried to translate the phrase
``rip the Band-Aid off,'' which apparently does not translate
very well into Ukrainian----
[Laughter.]
Senator Murphy [continuing]. And my point was, at some
point, my impression is that you are going to have to deliver a
very tough message to the Russians that you are going to join
the EU, and you are going to have to potentially, as long as
Putin is there, accept some of the very bad economic behavior,
that Senator Corker talks about, coming along with it, unless
we can stop it, as the United States and Europe, together.
So, do you think that he is right, that there is a way for,
without our intervention, the Ukraine to make the turn to
Europe, in an overt way, without raising the ire of Russia in a
way that will do great damage to their economy? Or, perhaps, do
you think that Senator Corker is right, that, maybe with some
intervention from the United States, we might be able to help
manage that transition?
Dr. Brzezinski. Well, we certainly should try, and we
should certainly encourage the Ukrainians to try, themselves.
Because, ultimately, this is not an issue which can be resolved
by compulsion or pressure entirely from the outside. We can
influence events, but we cannot really dictate them.
My guess is--and I emphasis the word ``guess''--is that
Yanukovych, in his gut, feels that if he moves toward the
West--and part of it is also free elections that he will lose,
and that is part of the difficulty. Now, it is not easy, or
maybe not even productive, to speculate too publicly about how
to manage that, but I will just draw you an analogy, again, to
Poland, because it is relevant.
I mentioned that Poland produced a movement that produced a
popular leader, that they eventually sat down with a Communist
regime which knew that it was losing because the Soviet Union
was disintegrating, and they knew they had to somehow
accommodate the new reality, and contrived free elections,
which were free. And Solidarity won. And then Solidarity agreed
to the erstwhile dictator in Poland who imposed on Poland, with
Soviet approval, the marshal law, to be the first President.
You know what I am hinting at.
In other words, what the Ukrainians have to have is a
viable source of political influence, but also political
dialogue and some degree of elasticity in dealing with
Yanukovych to see that as possible. But, may not be possible.
It may not be possible. He may be too fearful. Look how
stupidly rigid he is on the Yulia Tymoshenko case. He could
have solved it just like that, without even too much fanfare,
simply expelling her; not necessarily even just sending her to
Germany for medical treatment, but simply saying, ``I am
getting rid of her.'' All right, so she would be outside the
country. Part of the problem would be solved. Perhaps the West
would demand that she then be permitted to return and campaign,
but that would be a bit of a stretch. But, he did not have the
guts or the imagination to do that, because he is, I think, a
little bit frozen in his anxiety that he might lose.
But, I think it is worth a try, but a lot depends also on
the maturity and flexibility, organizational skill, and
charismatic appeal of the opposition, including its willingness
to play the game, depending how it unfolds.
Senator Murphy. Well----
Dr. Brzezinski. One more sentence.
Senator Murphy. Yes, yes, sure.
Dr. Brzezinski. On one point, Putin's money is going to run
out.
Senator Murphy. Right.
Dr. Brzezinski. So, this is a lousy economy. It is an
economy from which funds are fleeing to the West. The new
middle class is enriching itself, but look where it is
depositing its money. There could be a crisis, in terms even of
what Putin can do for Yanukovych. And he has to be careful not
to use force on the Ukrainians. If he uses force on the
Ukrainians, he will discover very quickly that he has bitten
more than he can chew. These are tough people. They are not
going to give up their independence.
Senator Murphy. I wanted to ask you about the opposition.
And I know you will not necessarily want to comment on
individual political leaders in the Ukraine, but it struck me
that there is--when you are on the Maidan, there is this huge,
giant portrait of Tymoshenko; and yet, when you are actually
talking to individuals there, there is not a lot of talk of
individual political leaders. They are there for a variety of
reasons, but most of which, as Tom Melia was mentioning
earlier, are not connected to an individual political party.
And there seems to be a disconnect between what those in the
Maidan, who were there and who have left, want and what the
political opposition is able to deliver.
And the worry is, is that if we are really counting on
political change in 2015 to ultimately deliver on the potential
ultimate salvation of the Ukraine, folks out there may have
expectations that the political opposition ultimately cannot
make good on.
So, how does--regardless of who ends up being the standard
bearer, how does the political opposition try to capitalize on
these fairly nonpolitical sentiments that are captured on the
Maidan?
Dr. Brzezinski. Well, first of all, by trying to create a
broader national dialogue. Now, it may be that Yanukovych--in
particular, his Prime Minister, who is very dogmatic--may not
want to talk to them. But, there are a lot of other people in
Kiev that are not committed to the regime, nor are entirely
against it, who can be talked to. I could give you--but I would
not do it now, publicly--the names of some oligarchs who I am
sure would engage in discussion with the opposition; in part,
because they are uneasy about the way things are shaping up.
They resent the fact that this territory is not theirs
exclusive, but a Mafia in Moscow has priority rights in what
they claim to be their exclusive area. They know that greater
opportunities shine in the West. They may be interested in
alternative deals. They may also have access and sources of
influence on Yanukovych. They may even be able to contrive--I
am talking literally from the top of my head right now--some
arrangement whereby the election is delayed for a while, but
with an understanding of a process that, in the meantime, takes
fruit and then leads to a transition, which is exactly what
happened in Poland. The elected President that they elected
from the previous regime lasted 1 year, and yet went
peacefully, in the end.
There are many ways you can skin that cat, but the
political leadership in Ukraine has to be manifestly mature,
but also symbolic. I am not going to mention names, but they
cannot all be running for President against each other.
Senator Murphy. Yes.
Dr. Brzezinski. One of them has to be, and they have to
make a calculation what is likely to be most effective.
And do not forget, this movement is driven by the passions
of the younger people, who relish the fact that they are
independent. That is a whole new psychological reality. And the
leader has to be, in a sense, somehow or other in tune with
that mood, has to symbolize it most effectively. And if that
manifests itself, that creates a new ball game. And, okay, they
can perhaps arrest him, Yanukovych can be under pressure from
Putin to arrest him, but it might not work.
And do not forget, Russia is changing, too. I am not sure
that everybody in Russia is crazy about trying to create some
sort of a union in which there is going to be, internally, more
opposition, and China, in the meantime, gains influence.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Dr. Brzezinski, thank you very much for your
very insightful views and for giving us a sense of the entire
field, as I like to call it. I grew up sitting in the cheap
seats, but it gave you a view of the entire field, and it gave
you a sense of what, in fact, is in front of you in terms of
choices to be made. So, I think you have done this for the
committee extraordinarily well.
There is a reason that I called this hearing as the second
hearing of this new session of the Congress, after South Sudan,
because I believe in the importance of the Ukraine, in the
urgency of protecting the civil society, that Senator Murphy
saw for himself when he was there, and in the possibilities of
what a sovereign Ukraine free from economic coercion can
ultimately achieve. And I think it is in the national interests
of the United States, as well as of the Ukrainian people, to be
able to try to achieve those goals.
So, we thank you for your testimony. We will continue to
monitor the events in the Ukraine, with both the full committee
and with our distinguished colleague.
This record will remain open until the close of business
tomorrow.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Ukrainian Congress Committee of America
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
thank you, on behalf of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America,
for giving us the opportunity to submit testimony today during this
critical hearing entitled ``Implications of the Crisis in Ukraine.''
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), the umbrella
organization, representing the interests of the over 1 million
Americans of Ukrainian descent for close to 75 years, would like to
express our community's gratitude to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee for your continued interest in the developments unfolding in
Ukraine today, and for your steadfast support for stronger bilateral
relations between the United States and Ukraine.
background
The Government of Ukraine's recent decision to reverse its course
on the signing of an Association Agreement with the European Union has
led to massive pro-democracy rallies throughout the country and
widespread condemnation from the Ukrainian American community. Though
the catalyst for the nationwide protests has perhaps been the
government's reversal of policy regarding Euro-Atlantic integration for
Ukraine, the movement's spirit has become one of standing in defense of
human rights, the protection of dignity, the eradication of corruption
within society and the defense of Ukraine's independence from Russia's
imperial ambitions. For the demonstrators, integrating with Europe and
into Western institutions means not only assuring their economic well-
being and political security but also defining their own and their
nation's political identity. Throughout Ukraine, the demonstrators have
remained peaceful in their approach and resolve. Numerous acts of
government sanctioned violence against the protesters, and subsequent
attacks upon civic activists and media outlets, have sparked widespread
concern among Ukraine's citizens for their personal safety and human
rights.
Acts of savagery, such as the beatings of innocent students on
Ukraine's EuroMaidan (central square) on December 1 and December 11
have no place in a civilized, democratic country. While condemnation of
the violence has been heard worldwide, targeted violence and
intimidation continues. The UCCA condemns any use of force and has
repeatedly urged the Government of Ukraine to refrain from further
violence against individual activists and the peaceful protesters
gathered in Kiev and throughout Ukraine. As citizens of a democracy,
Ukrainians have the expressed right to come together and collectively
voice and defend their common interests. The UCCA has called upon the
Government of Ukraine to respect the rule of law, conform to its
international commitments and to uphold democratic principles, one of
which is the freedom to assemble.
The UCCA fully supports and grateful to the U.S. Senate for the
passage of S. Res. 319. One clause therein emphatically states that:
``in the event of further state violence against peaceful protestors,
the President and Congress should consider whether to apply targeted
sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes, against individuals
responsible for ordering or carrying out the violence.'' In light of
the continued government sponsored violence, the UCCA feels that it is
imperative that such sanctions be placed immediately in order to
prevent further acts of violence against the protesters and
intimidation of media outlets, journalists, and civic leaders.
geopolitical implications
In the context of U.S. geostrategic interests, the current
situation in Ukraine cannot be understood without recognizing its
potentially far-reaching consequences for the world's security dynamic.
The Putinesque neocolonialist policy of expanding a ``Russkiy Mir'' and
the ever increasing, multivectored, political, economic, social,
cultural and religious aggression and encroachment directed against
Ukrainian sovereignty, can be directly referenced as the cause for
Yanukovych's seemingly abrupt about-face regarding the EU's Eastern
Partnership. The passionate yet peaceful response by the people of the
Maidan to the attempts at recolonization has challenged contemporary
notions of the state of European security. Russian behavior toward
Ukraine is rightly viewed with alarm by our NATO allies, most
particularly by those in Central Europe. It is understood to be a
threat to the stabilizing transnational, trans-Atlantic security
framework that first emerged in the years after the Second World War
and expanded with the fall of the Soviet Union.
For the United States, Ukraine's inclusion into these structures
clearly serves our national interests. The security of the United
States lies in the expansion of democracy, not in the appeasement of a
failed empire intent on renewal. Furthermore, the United States has
provided public and politically binding security guarantees including,
but not limited to, the 1994 Trilateral Agreement which elicits, at the
very least, Washington's engagement when Ukraine's security is
threatened in exchange for Ukraine's commitment to its renunciation of
its nuclear weapons and its ascension to NPT as a nonnuclear state.
These assurances were and remain critical for Ukraine and they include
U.S. support for Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and integrity, the
nonuse of force and the freedom from economic coercion. Today, each of
these security components is at issue.
recommendations
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America calls upon the United
States to:
Enact the appropriate clauses of S. Res. 319 calling for
targeted sanctions against Ukrainian Government officials for
their corrupt practices;
Expand the ``Magnitsky Act'' legislation to include the
Yanukovych ``clan,'' their supporting oligarchs and security
forces as well as Russian officials who are actively
threatening Ukraine;
Freeze Russia's membership applications to OECD and other
international organizations;
Publicly condemn Russian economic aggression and its
consequent violations of the Tripartite Agreement, the CSCE
Final Act, WTO agreement and other international treaties and
accords as they affect Ukraine's territorial integrity,
stability and political independence;
Facilitate all possible unilateral and multilateral economic
assistance to Ukraine under circumstances ensuring its benefit
to the Ukrainian people, not to governmental functionaries;
Maintain U.S. Government spending on democracy programs and
continued civil society in Ukraine at 2013 levels;
Provide immediate emergency supplemental funding to counter
the regime's efforts to block the public's access to
information.
The crisis in Eastern Europe and Ukraine specifically, will not
simply go away. In an increasingly interconnected and economically
interdependent world, the United States must take the lead in promoting
international norms and consolidating geopolitical stability. It must
work to facilitate the transformation of Russia's lingering imperial
ambitions into ambitions of democratic statehood. Today, Russia's
intellectuals and democrats look toward Ukraine and the EuroMaidan as
an inspiration. With American support, a democratic, independent
Ukraine can be that keystone of freedom in the region. However, unless
Ukraine is safeguarded allowing it to integrate into Europe and its
structures as its people wish, trans-Atlantic security is simply an
illusion.
conclusion
The UCCA stands in admiration of the hundreds of thousands
demonstrating their commitment to the future of their nation. We are
humbled by their fortitude and courage and we stand united with all
Ukrainians gathered on the EuroMaidans throughout Ukraine who are
freely expressing their desire for a democratic, European future!
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, urges the United
States Senate to continue assisting the people of Ukraine and heed
their calls for support of their democratic and EuroAtlantic
aspirations during this most critical juncture!
______
Letter From the United Oppositions to the Senate of the United States
Kiev, Independence Square,
January 12, 2014.
Dear Members of the Senate: On behalf of the millions of
Ukrainians, who are standing in an over 50 days protest against the
authoritarian regime and for their European choice, democracy,
fundamental human rights and freedoms, we, the participants of the
Rally on January 12, 2014, express our sincere gratitude to our
American friends, especially the U.S. Senate for your support.
We highly appreciate the position of principles of the U.S. Senate,
reflected in the Resolution of January 7, supporting the Ukrainian
people. The Senate fairly condemned the violence against the peaceful
demonstrators that happened on November 30, December 1 and December 11,
2013, and clearly warned that in case of further use of force against
the protestors, the U.S. should consider whether to apply targeted
sanctions against individuals responsible for ordering or carrying out
the violence.
On the night of January 10-11 the anti-peoples regime has once
again behaved aggressively and used violence against the peaceful
demonstrators, injuring at least 11 people in Kiev. Yuriy Lutsenko,
former Minister of Interior, well-known activist and the former
political prisoner of this regime is severely injured. This very day in
Kharkiv bandits directed by local authorities stormed Saint-Dimitriy
Cathedral of Ukrainian Autocefalous Orthodox Church where protestors of
Kharkiv Maydan found their refuge.
Ukrainian Government moved to direct threats to the Church. So, on
January 3 this year, Ministry of Culture warned in written Ukrainian
Greek Catholic Church, which was repressed by Stalin's regime in Soviet
times, about possible termination of its activity for making divine
services at Maydan in December 2013-January 2014.
Ministry of Education and Science is increasing illegal pressure
and intimidation of students in order to prevent their participation in
protests. Courts are pronouncing unconstitutional verdicts prohibiting
citizens to exercise their right on peaceful gatherings.
It is a high time to step from warnings to the targeted sanctions
application against Yanukovych, his family and closest surrounding--all
those involved in establishment of authoritarian regime in Ukraine,
political repressions and selective justice towards Yulia Tymoshenko,
Euromaydan activists and other opposition and public leaders.
First of all we urge to introduce sanctions against those who
issued and carried out criminal orders to beat up people and intimidate
activists, or who criminally remained inactive on their wielded
positions instead of defending the civil rights, namely: Viktor
Yanukovych, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, Minister of Interior Vitaliy
Zakharchenko, Minister of Culture Leonid Novokhat'ko, Minister of
Education and Science Dmytro Tbachnik, Secretary of the National
Security and Defense Council Andriy Klyuyev, General Prosecutor Viktor
Pshonka, Head of Kharkiv Regional Administration Mykhailo Dobkin, Mayor
of Kharkiv City Guennady Kernes, judges and other officials involved in
mass violation of human rights in Ukraine.
We urge for application of the U.S. entrance ban, bank accounts
freeze, proceedings against laundering of funds acquired through
criminal means, arrest of real estate and other property and assets in
direct ownership, belonging to family members or dummy firms.
The evil must be punished. The truth should win!
______
Responses of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Thomas Melia to Questions Submitted by Senator Robert
Menendez
Question. There are recent reports of isolated, but disturbing,
incidents of anti-Semitism and xenophobia in Ukraine. What, if
anything, has the Embassy done to respond to these incidents? What are
the lessons learned from years of fighting anti-Semitism in other parts
of Europe and in the former Soviet Union that can be applied to
Ukraine?
Answer. The Department of State condemns anti-Semitism and
xenophobia in Ukraine. We share your concern about recent incidents.
Ambassador Pyatt has personally delivered the message to all of
Ukraine's political leaders--those parties in power and in opposition--
that political parties must not just refrain, but refute any form of
anti-Semitism or endorsement of violence against minorities.
Our Ambassador and other officials at Embassy Kiev have played an
active role in raising these incidents bilaterally with Ukrainian
Government officials and other political players. They have also
engaged with religious leaders and with civil society to promote
religious freedom and human rights.
The U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism visited
Ukraine in November, meeting with government officials as well as
Jewish community leaders. He saw signs of a reviving Jewish community,
and open anti-Semitism is limited.
Wherever and whenever minority groups face discrimination and
violence, all of us must speak up and speak out. Governments must enact
laws and policies that guarantee and promote religious freedom.
Government and civil society, including religious leaders across
faiths, must work together to promote tolerance and combat anti-
Semitism.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with you and other
concerned Members of Congress to combat anti-Semitism.
Question. How have we targeted our assistance to Ukraine in recent
years? To what extent have we sought to support democratic institutions
and civil society, and how do we coordinate our efforts with the
European Union?
Answer. In recent years, U.S. assistance programs have focused on
encouraging the development of a democratic, prosperous, and secure
Ukraine, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community. Major
emphases include promoting democracy and human rights, including
through support to civil society, independent media, and efforts to
reform the justice sector; expanding access to HIV prevention,
treatment, and care; securing the Chornobyl accident site; and
facilitating energy efficiency and independence.
In FY 2013, the United States provided more than $25 million in
governance and democracy assistance. U.S.-funded training teaches
nongovernmental organizations about management, financial
sustainability, advocacy, and monitoring the public sector. Technical
assistance to independent media organizations improves journalists'
professionalism and skills. U.S. training and technical advice improves
judicial administration; promotes criminal justice reform in line with
the improved Criminal Procedure Code; increases the availability of pro
bono legal services; and improves the effectiveness of defense
advocates, judges, and other actors in the criminal justice sector. We
also work to build local governments' capacity to manage and implement
budgets; interact with citizens; deliver municipal services; and build
and maintain infrastructure.
The United States regularly coordinates our efforts with the EU
through consultations in Brussels and Washington and via meetings of
diplomats and assistance partners based in Ukraine.
Question. Increasing numbers of international NGOs report problems
with registration and tax issues in Ukraine. What action is and/or has
the State Department taken to address these concerns?
Answer. International and local NGOs that implement humanitarian
assistance programs in Ukraine have been experiencing problems with
customs clearance since December 2012 due to the absence of a procedure
within the Government of Ukraine for recognizing shipments as
humanitarian aid. Until December 2012, this procedure was routinely
accomplished through the Humanitarian Assistance Commission (HAC) under
the Cabinet of Ministers. However, a Cabinet of Ministers resolution
dissolved the HAC in December 2012 and transferred its responsibilities
to the Ministry of Social Policy (MSP). The MSP has yet to fully
implement a permanent mechanism to coordinate clearance of humanitarian
assistance.
Specifically on these issues, the State Department has been in
regular contact with representatives from the Joint Jewish Distribution
Committee (JDC), which provides humanitarian assistance directly to
Holocaust survivors and funds to Jewish community and cultural centers.
In years past, the MSP extended tax-exempt status to JDC's annual
operating budget within 4-6 weeks of JDC's application. In 2013, JDC
did not receive this tax exemption, despite having applied in late
November 2012. They have applied again for 2014 and are still awaiting
a response.
Officials at our Embassy in Kiev as well as State Department
officials in Washington have repeatedly reached out to the Ukrainian
Government on behalf of the NGOs facing these issues in Ukraine. Some
have only recently managed to receive the necessary approvals to
continue providing assistance, such as the American Red Cross.
Question. Ukraine has been pursuing a policy of creating greater
energy independence and had invited Chevron and Shell in to drill, to
what extent do you believe that will be pursued in the future?
Answer. Chevron signed a production sharing agreement (PSA) with
the Government of Ukraine on November 5, 2013. The agreement could lead
to a $10 billion investment by Chevron in Ukraine, according to
Chevron's public announcement. Chevron is now working on concluding an
operating agreement. It has not yet drilled any exploratory wells, but
Chevron estimates that the field could produce up to 11 billion cubic
meters (bcm) of gas per year. ExxonMobil has not yet signed a PSA for
an offshore field in the Black Sea, but that field could produce an
estimated 5 bcm per year. ExxonMobil still hopes to conclude the PSA by
early this year.
These projects are a major opportunity for Ukraine to develop
domestic resources that could significantly supplant imported supplies.
In 2012 Ukraine consumed 55 bcm of gas, of which 33 bcm was imported
from Russia. Together, these projects could cut Ukraine's dependence on
Russia in half. Missing the opportunity to sign the PSA with
ExxonMobil, on the other hand, would be an enormous step backward in
Ukraine's goal of energy diversification. It would also be a negative
signal to other foreign companies thinking of investing in Ukraine.
______
Responses of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Corker
Question. How many protesters have been imprisoned since November?
On December 20, 2013, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted an amnesty law
to have these protesters released; however, Ukraine's Justice Minister
has said that this law cannot be implemented until it is harmonized
with a number of other laws.
What is the status of the imprisoned protesters, how many
are there, and does the Ukrainian Government intend to fully
implement the amnesty law in both letter and spirit?
Answer. Due to the fluidity of the situation in Ukraine, Embassy
Kiev reports it is impossible to determine with certainty the number of
individuals who have been detained or the number released with charges
pending against them. However, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry released
a report on January 24 which stated that, since the protests began on
November 21, 103 people have been detained, at least temporarily, by
the police. Of them, 53 have been informed that they are suspects in
ongoing investigations. Twenty-four have been remanded into custody by
the courts. The week of January 27, at least six protestors were killed
during clashes with the government.
The December amnesty law was amended on January 16, 2014. It was
originally understood that the purpose of the law was to release from
criminal liability and prosecution all peaceful protesters who were
detained following government crackdowns on the Maidan, which occurred
on November 30 and December 11. The law was poorly drafted and enforced
only in very few cases. The revised law will apparently extend the
amnesty to cover crimes committed during 21 November-26 December 2013
by any person for offences such as inflicting bodily injuries,
harassment of journalists, making false bomb threats, and exceeding of
authority or service powers.
On January 23, President Viktor Yanukovych met directly with the
three main opposition leaders for the first time since the protests
began. Following those negotiations, both the President and opposition
have said the government will move to release all peaceful protestors.
On January 24, at least three individuals who had been detained since
December 10 were released. Negotiations were continuing as of January
27. The Parliament is scheduled in an extraordinary session on January
28. We will continue to monitor closely over the coming days.
Question. How can the United States and EU prevent further violence
in Ukraine?
Answer. We have stated publicly and privately to the Ukrainian
Government that it must take immediate steps to de-escalate the
situation. These steps should include removing the riot police from the
center of Kiev, releasing all peaceful protestors, and holding
accountable all officials responsible for ordering violence. Vice
President Biden has personally delivered this message to President
Viktor Yanukovych during three phone calls over the last week.
Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland also spoke to Foreign Minister
Kozhara on January 28 to reiterate that all sides must refrain from
violence. She urged the government to win back the trust and confidence
of the Ukrainian people. She will be engaging Ukrainian officials again
at the Munich Security Conference and plans to visit Kiev on February
6.
The EU and several member states have echoed these statements and
are becoming increasingly engaged. Stephan Fuele, the EU Commissioner
for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, was appointed to
represent the EU and all member states in talks with Ukrainian
officials and the opposition. He met with President Yanukovych on
January 24. High Representative Catherine Ashton traveled to Kiev the
week of January 27 and returned the week of February 3 for similar
discussions. Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke to Yanukovych on January 23
to encourage a serious dialogue with opposition leaders. Foreign
Minister Kozhara spoke to his counterparts in Poland, Sweden, and
Germany on January 27.
On January 23, the opposition called for a truce to allow time for
negotiations with the government. To date, that truce has largely held
and there has been a significant de-escalation in violence. However,
our officials at Embassy Kiev will continue to follow events closely.
Question. Moscow has called for the EU to engage in trilateral
talks with Russia and Ukraine on the topic of EU-Ukraine relations. Why
should Russia be involved in this? Shouldn't the EU and Ukraine define
their relations on a bilateral basis?
Answer. The EU has said that it will not engage in trilateral
negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, as the question of Ukraine's
association with the EU is a bilateral issue. The EU has been clear
that the agreement itself has already been negotiated directly with
Ukraine over a number of years and any such discussions would not
reopen those negotiations.
Question. Ukraine has substantially reduced imports of Russian
natural gas over the past 2 years. Will Moscow's recent price cut
reverse this trend and thus increase Ukraine's energy dependence on
Russia?
Answer. The details of the gas price deal with Russia are not
public, so we do not know if Ukraine committed to importing a certain
volume of gas in exchange for the discounted price. In addition, the
price will be re-negotiated every 3 months, so it remains unclear
whether the discount will be permanent. Therefore, at this time it is
not possible to predict how much gas Ukraine will import from Russia in
the future.
______
Response of Hon. Victoria Nuland to Question
Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. I cosponsored Senate Resolution 319, which was adopted by
unanimous consent on January 7, to express support for the Ukrainian
people after their President's unfortunate decision not to sign an
Association Agreement with the European Union. In part, the resolution
noted that ``in the event of further state violence against peaceful
protestors, the President and Congress should consider whether to apply
targeted sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes, against
individuals responsible for ordering or carrying out the violence.''
Under what circumstances do you believe such measures would
be warranted? What other tools might the United States utilize
in order to hold Ukraine's leaders responsible for acts of
violence?
Answer. We were appalled by the violence in Ukraine which led to
four deaths and many more injuries and by the government's
antidemocratic steps, including passage of problematic laws restricting
basic freedoms. These antidemocratic steps fueled popular frustration
and tensions, and to a significant degree are responsible for current
tensions. The U.S. Government has remained active throughout this
crisis, reaching out to the opposition and the government at senior
levels, and civil society leaders, making clear our interest in a
peaceful, negotiated solution to the current standoff, and we are
beginning to see positive steps, including the repeal of antidemocratic
legislation. We have made clear that we have a variety of options at
our disposal, including but not limited to sanctions, if warranted. To
underscore our concern, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev has announced that it
revoked visas for several Ukrainians involved in the recent violence.
We are looking at other available policy tools and assistance
mechanisms and consulting with the EU and European governments most
closely interested in Ukraine and its future.
Response of Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Melia to Question
Submitted by Senator Edward J. Markey
Question. I continue to be concerned about deteriorating conditions
in Ukraine for LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, it has become
increasingly common for factions opposed to closer affiliation with the
European Union to try to mark the LGBT community as an unwanted
``Western'' force in Ukrainian society.
Do you see signs that reactionary groups are using the LGBT
community as a scapegoat for Ukraine's problems?
How can the United States and our European allies promote
equal rights for LGBT individuals without at the same time
providing fodder for the anti-LGBT propaganda being promulgated
in Ukraine?
Answer. We share your concerns and want to assure you that we are
well aware of the problems affecting the LGBT community in Ukraine.
During the last 2 years we have put in place programs to support local
civil society organizations working to advance the human rights of LGBT
persons. We have also established strong partnerships with like-minded
European governments to support Ukrainian LGBT human rights defenders
and activists on the front lines.
We have seen officials in a number of governments, including Russia
and Ukraine, describe LGBT persons and their human rights as ``western
imports.'' To them we reiterate the words of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton: ``gay people are born into and belong to every society
in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are
doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes. They
are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a
Western invention; it is a human reality.'' And we remind them that
universal human rights--enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights--belong to everyone, not just to certain people in certain
countries.
Through statements, actions and bilateral engagement with the
Government of Ukraine--in coordination with our European allies--we
have pushed back against the fear, ignorance, and hate that lead to
violence against members of the LGBT community. There have been some
successes.
On numerous occasions we urged the Government of Ukraine, publicly
and privately, to fulfill its commitments to OSCE principles and
obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, including protecting the fundamental freedoms of all
of its citizens, including freedom of expression. We also advocate for
respect for the human rights of members of minority communities.
Last May, under arduous circumstances, LGBT activists hosted Kiev's
first Equality Pride March. Our colleagues at Embassy Kiev maintain
contact with LGBT activists and provide moral and other support to
those who come under threat.
In addition to our individual and bilateral engagement, in 2011 the
State Department launched the Global Equality Fund to support projects
and programs to advance and protect LGBT persons globally. Since then,
the Fund has allocated over $7.5 million to civil society organizations
in over 50 countries, including in Europe, to bolster their efforts to
increase human rights protections for LGBT persons.
Still, we know that much more needs to be done to ensure the
protection of LGBT persons in Ukraine, to separate discussion of their
rights from the geopolitics of the region, and to reduce
discrimination, social stigma, and violence. We will continue to speak
out and to work with the European Union and within the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe to press for respect for human
rights and democratic principles in Ukraine.
[all]