Back in 2004, when thousands of young people gathered in the
central square of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, Americans cheered,
for it looked as if democracy had spring full-blown upon the
departure of long-time strongman Leonid Kuchma.
From this distance it seemed that Ukrainians were speaking with
one voice, but they weren’t. As in any democracy there are many
voices to be heard and since then, many have been heard, often in
disagreement with one another. Fewer than two dozen years have
passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of
independent governments among its former components.
The United States, as a mature democracy, understands that
formulating a foreign policy toward a young democracy, such as
Ukraine’s, means listening to many voices. No one voice, no matter
how strong, can reflect all points of view. The development of
Ukrainian democracy is an ongoing process. The country has been and
still is in the process of healing painful issues that divided
peoples and places over a very long time. Ukraine and its leaders
need the support of other democratic nations, especially ours, as
it works its way through the process.
Historically, Ukraine has a very long relationship with Russia.
Indeed, Russia had its beginnings as Kievan Rus, in what
is now Kiev, in the 9th century. The east and south of Ukraine is
largely Russian-speaking today. The country’s east and northeast
border on Russia. The northwest borders on Belarus. The west is
largely Ukrainian-speaking and borders on Poland, Slovakia, and
Hungary on the west and Romania and Moldova on the southwest.
Today, Ukraine is an important strategic partner of the United
States. It sent troops to Afghanistan and had one of the largest
contingents in Iraq. Because of its geographical position, Ukraine
is, in effect, a potential gateway between the U.S. and Russia. At
the moment, however, the question is open: for whom will the
gateway open?
For Ukraine to move forward with its democracy, the time has
come for opposing forces on important issues to find a way to
compromise over seemingly intractable issues. Take the case of the
former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She is in prison, convicted
in 2011 for “abuse of power” over a natural gas transaction
she had negotiated with Russia. In addition, she has also been
charged with implication in the murder of a Ukrainian
parliamentarian in 1996.
Her supporters claim this is all a political vendetta.
Prosecutors say that is not so; that there is plenty of evidence to
support the charges against her. The unwillingness of either side
to budge has very divisive implications for the society.
U.S. Senators of both parties recently showed that compromise,
worked out quietly, can open up a seemingly intractable problem.
They worked to solve the long-standing and divisive issue of
illegal immigration of millions of people into the country. Six
months ago, no one thought this possible.
Ukrainians, given their history of suffering, as a people do not
want human hatred in the form of any “ism,” whether it be fascism,
nationalism, chauvinism or religious intolerance. While politicians
come and go, the nation remains and its people want the values of
democracy to prevail. Thus, in cases such as the Tymoshenko one,
they can look to the U.S. for examples on how to worked
toward compromise.
Mr. Hannaford is a board member of The Committee on
the Present Danger.
