Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Gryshchenko’s recent response to the opinion article of five E.U. foreign ministers was a paradigm reminiscent of Soviet diplomacy. Granted it was amusing because it was so egregious. After all, Gryshchenko is a copycat of Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov and they are alumni of the same school.
Perhaps the most entertaining statement is in the introduction where Gryshchenko states, “for me it is not perception that matters but facts.” He then submits five misrepresentations, spins them like an old Soviet apparatchik, and offers them as a diplomatic rebuke to his foreign counterparts. Having spent time in the West, Gryshchenko cannot possibly believe that anyone is buying this nonsense, but nonetheless, he feels personally satiated because he feels he has one- upped his detractors.
Gryshchenko then asserts that Ukraine is “committed to European values” and offers not facts but his perception that Ukraine is “not sliding but striding towards full integration.” The difference between sliding and striding can only be a matter of perception. He then offers last year’s completion of negotiations with the E.U. as proof of progress, failing to mention that nothing was initialed, signed or ratified last year and only because Ukraine failed to do its part.
He then mentions “the ambitious reform agenda underway in Ukraine,” but offers no examples and, certainly, no evidence. Then, perhaps noticing that he should submit a statistic or two, he repeats the most popular exaggeration of the Yanukovych regime, that Ukrainian GDP grew by 5% in 2011. Actually the figure was 4.5% but even that was illusory since Ukraine’s GDP had fallen so precipitously that even with the 4.5% growth, last year’s GDP failed to reach its 2008 level. The lesson here is that if your GDP essentially bottoms out, at some point it has to grow. Furthermore, even this recent growth is a result of a minor global economic turnaround in which Ukraine was able to sell off more of its natural resources to other countries whose economies had improved. This “growth” is certainly not attributable to sound economic policies of the Yanukovych regime.
Misrepresentations and spin then give way to arrogance as Gryshchenko compares the Tymoshenko and Lutsenko trials to trials of corrupt officials in other countries. His argumentation goes that court decisions have to be respected. This line of reasoning would assume, of course, that Ukraine has an independent judicial system. Not a single western expert observer of the two trials has acknowledged that these trials have been fair. As an attorney who had the opportunity to observe the Tymoshenko trial for three hours, I can state that I have never in my life seen such a travesty. There was no need for the prosecutor since the judge took on that role. International opprobrium of these proceedings has been unanimous and unequivocal.
Gryshchenko concludes with, “In 2010, President Yanukovych came to power after beating Tymoshenko fair and square. Presidential elections were universally recognized as meeting international standards. It was Tymoshenko alone who did not recognize the election results.” Even this statement can be challenged. As an international observer of the 2010 elections, I concluded that the elections were marred by intimidation and corruption inveterate to a poor developing society. The OSCE, having fielded a contingent of non-Ukrainian or even non-Russian speaking monitors who visited a total of 6-7% of the polling precincts, irresponsibly within 24 hours announced its lukewarm positive appraisal which the Yanukovych regime has exploited over and over again. Many non-governmental organizations who sponsored monitors concluded that the elections were marred by intimidation of the electorate in its everyday lives and corruption (money, job opportunities) of the electoral commission. Besides even this, more people voted against Yanukovych than for him.
In any event, the election results are entirely irrelevant since they do not allow Yanukovych to behave like a thug after assuming power. What is more interesting than Gryshchenko’s statement is his omission. He does not mention the local elections of 2011 carried out by the Yanukovych regime whereby Yanukovych consolidated his power. The 2011 elections were condemned by the international community.
There is a lesson here – the Yanukovych regime, like the Putin regime in Russia, does not play by internationally accepted democratic rules and principles. Both regimes feel sufficiently confident, with old Soviet apparatchiks at the helm of their foreign ministries, that they can fool most of the international community some of the time or some of the international community most of the time and, in the meantime, they can flex some more muscle at home.
