| UKRAINE BUSINESS NEWS - TWO ARTICLES |
U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC) INDEX OF ARTICLES ------ However, introduction of export duties was considered as a second best option in order to ensure price stability and food security in a global environment with high grain process but should only be a temporary solution. However, introduction of export duties was considered as the preferred second best option once the government has decided to interfere in the market in order to ensure price stability and food security in a global environment with high grain prices but should only be a temporary solution. The situation in the seeds market, including artificial problems with the import and poor quality of domestic seeds leading to poor harvests and increased prices, was also discussed. These issues could be tackled within the framework of the Working Group between the Ministry and business community representatives. USUBC FOOTNOTE: The Agribusiness Committee of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), Washington, D.C., www.usubc.org, has held a series of meetings in Washington, D.C. about the severe and damaging problems caused by the Government of Ukraine in the marketing and exporting of grain over the past nine months. A meeting was held today at the U.S. Department of State and additional meetings are planned in the near future. Most of the members of the USUBC Agribusiness Committee are also active in trade associations in Kyiv regarding the critical agribusiness issues. WASHINGTON, D.C. - Freedom House and the Open Society Foundations held a meeting in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 to release the report “Sounding the Alarm: A Freedom House Report on the State of Democracy and Human Rights in Ukraine, ” (see attachment to this e-mail or the following link; http://freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/98.pdf; the news release can be found at http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1403. Following Ukraine’s downgrade from “Free” to “Partly Free” in its annual Freedom in the World report, Freedom House, with support from the Open Society Foundations, conducted an on-ground assessment mission of the current state of democracy and human rights in the country. At the meeting on Wednesday in Washington, D,C., the authors of the report -- (1) David Kramer (Executive Director, Freedom House), (2) Damon Wilson (Vice President, Atlantic Council) and (3) Robert Nurick (non-resident senior fellow, Atlantic Council) – outlined Ukraine’s current socio-political atmosphere, explained their conclusions regarding Ukraine’s current trajectory, and stated concrete steps that both Ukraine and the international community need to take to prevent further democratic backsliding and to promote democratic values in Ukraine. One year after Ukrainian citizens elected Viktor Yanukovych as their new president, Freedom House sent an independent team of experts to Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv to assess the country’s democracy and human rights situation. The assessment was conducted one month after Freedom House downgraded Ukraine from Free to Partly Free in its Freedom in the World 2011 rankings. (1) Until that point, Ukraine had been the only non-Baltic former Soviet state ranked in the Free category; it was one of only two countries worldwide to be downgraded to Partly Free for developments in 2010. Freedom House, with support from the Open Society Foundations, decided to conduct this assessment for several reasons. With a population of 46 million and shared borders with the European Union (EU) and NATO member states, as well as with Russia, Ukraine is a country of vast importance. If it becomes a more established, democratic, market-oriented member of the Euro-Atlantic community, it will have a positive effect on the wider region and become a success story for its neighbors to emulate. If it moves in a more authoritarian direction, Ukraine will not only set back its own future, but also damage hope for reform in Eurasia as a whole. Finally, the debate about Ukraine both inside the country and in the West has become rather polarized, breaking down roughly into pro- and anti-Yanukovych camps. These concerns were reinforced by what we heard and saw during our visit. In our view, there is no question that President Yanukovych has consolidated power at the expense of democratic development. The president and his defenders credibly argue that this centralization of power is necessary if the administration is to have any chance to govern Ukraine effectively and pursue long-overdue economic reforms. While the discipline of Yanukovych’s government is a welcome change to some, representing a departure from the paralyzing and endless bickering of the Yushchenko-Tymoshenko period, it has also revealed authoritarian tendencies. The negative effects have included a more restrictive environment for the media, selective prosecution of opposition figures, worrisome instances of intrusiveness by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), widely criticized local elections in October 2010, a pliant parliament (Verkhovna Rada), and an erosion of basic freedoms of assembly and speech. Corruption remains a huge drain on the country, and there is significant room for the situation to get even worse. Indeed, if left unchecked, the trends set by Ukraine’s current leadership will move the country toward greater centralization and consolidation of power—that is, toward authoritarianism. The checks, if they come, must be both domestic and foreign in origin. But while civil society remains rather vibrant, it is also dispirited, depressed after the letdown by the Orange Revolution’s leaders, and despondent over the current government’s direction. The formal opposition offers little hope, as longtime political figures fail to inspire much public confidence. This dynamic places even more pressure and responsibility on the West to deepen its engagement, both with the Yanukovych government and with Ukrainian society, by encouraging and rewarding good performance and pushing aggressively against backsliding on democracy. Our visit reaffirmed our belief that Ukraine’s leaders do care about what the West thinks; they seek support and approval for their policies. And yet both the EU and the United States seem to have disengaged from Ukraine or narrowed the bilateral agenda to a few issues of strategic importance, such as nonproliferation. This is the wrong approach. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ---- For many, the Orange Revolution represented a high point for Ukraine’s democratic development and respect for human rights, and a marked change from the Kuchma era. Civil society activists felt emboldened, journalists felt liberated from government pressure, and the country appeared to be on track to join the Western community of nations. It did not take long, however, for the Orange Revolution to lose its luster, as its leaders descended into bickering with one another while falling sadly short of the high expectations many people had for them. For Viktor Yanukovych, his “election victory” in 2004 was stolen from him. His victory in the 2010 poll, which was deemed free and fair by international observers, marked a remarkable political reversal. Yanukovych defeated not only Viktor Yushchenko, to whom he had lost in 2004, but also the archrival to both men, Yuliya Tymoshenko. It was his turn to run the country, and according to some observers, to deny his opponents the possibility of a similar political revival. President Yanukovych talks about deepening Ukraine’s democratic development and integration with Europe, and his supporters, positing a contrast with the Yushchenko era, argue that there is now a more cohesive, effective government capable of actually governing the country. Yanukovych seeks to bring order to the chaos he inherited from his predecessor. His administration has successfully reduced the number of government agencies from 116 to 66, taken up 21 different reform initiatives, drafted more than 100 pieces of legislation, and launched a series of anticorruption investigations. In short, his government has developed and is pursuing a serious reform agenda. Furthermore, during Yanukovych’s first year as president, Ukraine has made more progress in negotiations with the EU and resolved more long-standing bilateral issues with the United States than it did during several years under the Orange leaders. But a number of actions and developments since Yanukovych became president suggest that the country is heading away from a democratic consolidation. Concentration of power, selective prosecutions of political opponents, a more intrusive SBU, the absence of checks and balances, and politicization of the judicial process are the main concerns observers cite. Our visit did little to dispel these concerns. At the same time, it would be premature to write off Ukraine as a hopeless cause. Ukrainians, of course, will determine their own future. The West nonetheless has an important role to play. After all, it is in the interest of the EU and the United States to support an independent, sovereign, democratic Ukraine that is increasingly integrated into Europe and the global economy. But there is a glaring absence of Western attention on Ukraine these days. Between the focus on improving relations with Russia and frustration with endless headaches in Ukraine, the West, according to many Ukrainians with whom we met, has lost interest. That is a perception, whether fair or not, that needs to be addressed head on. Because Ukraine’s leaders care about what the West thinks, it has an opportunity to influence their behavior. It is up to the EU and the United States to take advantage of that opportunity now. In that spirit, to prevent further democratic backsliding in Ukraine, and to support constructive initiatives both inside and outside the government, the assessment team recommends the following: · For President Yanukovych and his government: · For Ukrainian civil society and media: · For the United States: · For the European Union: Despite the challenges facing Ukraine today, specific actions by all elements of the Ukrainian polity and civil society, as well as by the West, can put the country back on the path toward a stronger democracy and more rapid integration with Europe. USUBC NOTE: The Freedom House report is sent for information purposes only. The findings in the Report are solely those of the assessment team/four authors, David Kramer, Robert Nurick, Damon Wilson and Evan Alterman. The entire Freedom House report can be found in the attachment to this e-mail or at the following link: http://freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/98.pdf. The Freedom House news release can be found at http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1403. David Kramer and Damon Wilson, two of the authors of the report, serve as Senior Advisors to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), www.usubc.org. [1] Key findings from Freedom in the World 2011 are available online at http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/fiw/Tables%2C%20Graphs%2C%20etc%2C%20FIW%202011_Revised%201_11_11.pdf. |
