After working in Ukraine for 3.5 years, U.S. Ambassador John F. Tefft says he developed “a little spot” in his heart about this country. Ukraine will become the last overseas diplomatic assignment in his unusually long career, half of which he has worked on and off on Ukraine.
Tefft,
63, has served as Ambassador to Georgia
and Lithuania, among other places, and was Deputy Chief of Mission, and Charge d’Affaires in Moscow in the late 1990s. He also worked
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs after
that and was responsible for U.S. relations with Russia,
Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
As ambassador to
Ukraine, he is credited for a number of achievements. One of those is an
agreement on non-proliferation issues, and specifically on the highly enriched
uranium that Ukraine agreed to give up under his watch. This agreement is
considered to be President Barack Obama’s big success story.
“We’re
getting rid of the residuals of the Cold War, many of which my predecessors
tried very hard (to do),” Tefft says.
Tefft has
also been outspoken about Ukraine’s problems, namely corruption and political
persecution, and talked about them openly and at length during his July 8 exit
interview with the Kyiv Post. He is leaving Ukraine on July 29.
He is also credited for assembling an efficient team at the U.S. Embassy,
which was ranked very highly by the State Department inspectors recently. Many
members of his team followed him to Kyiv from previous assignments.
Tefft is now looking forward to going back to
Washington D.C., where he says he “will take time” considering his options and see more of his
two daughters and a granddaughter.
“Mariella and I are going to go back to
Washington, and we’re going to retire from the diplomatic service after 42 years,”
Tefft said about his family’s plans.
KP: What kind of a brief would you
give your successor about the current state of Ukraine?
JT: What I’ve told Geoff Pyatt is that he is a very lucky guy to
have gotten this assignment. This is one of the most challenging, fascinating –
sometimes frustrating – assignments any diplomat could have. This is still a
nation in transition, and there is still what my friends call a Soviet
mentality that colors the way people look at things.
KP: What has frustrated you the most?
JT: The fact that after 20 years you still have the level of
corruption in the society that you do. I am not just talking huge kickbacks in
business. I am talking about having to put money into test exams, pay for
physicians, the ordinary kind of corruption on the day-to-day basis.
Some fight against, some accept it as just a part of the price of
living.
I sometimes get frustrated at what seems to be a policy
orientation is not embraced as quickly or with as much alacrity (as should be).
I believe that the European Union is the future for Ukraine.
KP: What do you feel you achieved in
your three years here?
JT: I like to think that I represented my country, which is the
number one job of a diplomat. That I represented to the Ukrainian government and
to the Ukrainian people American not only policy, but I represented my country
in the values for which we stand, effectively.
KP: Any ambassador represents the
country, and you’re known as the ambassador who does it well. And I would like
you to reflect on those achievements.
JT: I feel that we have been very straightforward when it comes to
human rights. I have spoken out in a number of speeches on the rule of law – I
think that’s a critical part of the future of this country.
We’ve been very straightforward on the question of selective
prosecution, the government knows where we stand on that.
KP: What is the best-case scenario that you’re lobbying for in the case of
Yulia Tymoshenko?
JT: Our scenario for over a year has been release her to go to
Germany and get medical treatment. That’s what we’ve been saying privately and
publicly to the government all along. And I think that’s what the doctors say
she needs, my sense is – and I am not a doctor – that it’s not just a question
of therapy, she will probably need an operation at some point.
It should be done by itself, but it’s also a critical piece to get
the Association Agreement signed in November.
KP: What was the difference you saw in
Tymoshenko in May from a year ago?
JT: First day she greeted us, she was in bed – she was flat on her
back. Second time she was standing, although clearly in pain when she put
pressure on her right leg. She said she gets shooting pains up. I think it’s
the sciatic nerve into your back and pain that lingers. She was clearly in
pain, and I read carefully what the doctors from Charite say and the last exam
when they were here they said she needs to get this treatment right away, it’s
getting worse. And you could see that just as a normal observer, not a doctor,
that that pain was a constant for her.
KP: Apart from her health issues, did
you notice any other differences?
JT: I think in both cases she was well-attuned to the
political situation and spoke to us at length about her views on the political
situation. But I am not going to go into those because I consider it a
privileged conversation. There is nothing there that would surprise you, she
says it clearly in many of her publications.
KP: You were talking about a better
business climate. The US has invested less than a billion into Ukraine’s
economy, which is tiny compared to the size of the US economy. Why do you think
that is?
JT: Most of the economists whose judgement I trust will tell you
that Ukraine could take $40 billion in foreign direct investment. And the fact
that it isn’t getting that investment has a direct correlation to the lack of
business activity, the lack of development of alternative businesses besides
big steel and chemical businesses.
As long as you have a system that’s
still very corrupt, as long as you have a system where raider attacks take
place against big companies, not just small ones, as long as you have an
uncertain legal environment, whether it be prosecution or whether it be judges
who can be bribed, companies are going to be very careful. In the end, their
last resource is to go to your embassy.
My embassy is not the only one that spends time talking to the
government about our companies. All of European ambassadors do it. I think the
Russian ambassador does it for his people or his companies. I think the system
has to change.
KP: If you were to boil it down to top
three problems companies come to you with, what would they be?
JT: If you could assure them that when they got into a dispute
that they got recourse to a really fair court system that would give them fair
opportunity and justice – that’s probably the most important.
Second, you want as conducive an environment to do that
investment.
Third, I think the government has identified a number of things
that need to be done. Stopping raider attacks is absolutely critical. What
business wants is a clear set of rules for the game, and I think right now that
the rules are still not totally clear or the rules are clear that you risk your
capital, you risk your businesses because you don’t have the guarantees and the
institutions that protect your investment.
KP: Do you feel that the current
government is capable of producing those rules?
JT: I’d like to think so, I’ve certainly talked to them
enough about it. But I think it’s not just the current government. There are
things before I got here that the previous government should have done and
didn’t do to create a system where Ukraine would open for business.
KP: You made it sound as if there is
no principal difference between the previous government and this one.
JT: I didn’t mean to imply it, there are differences, but I am not
going to go analyzing that.
KP: WikiLeaks showed that you have an
amazing ability to attract people like oligarchs, rich people to come into the
embassy as if it’s a confessional. Why do you think that is?
JT: I am not a priest and it isn’t a confessional. I am not
supposed to comment on WikiLeaks, and I won’t but we try to do our job, we try
to represent our country. When I arrive, I tell the leaders of the country that
I have three jobs. One is to make sure that there is a very clear understanding
on the official level as to what the policies of my country are, across the
board, whether it’s political or economic, strategic, whatever.
Second, I have a responsibility to try and understand what’s
happening in this country and to explain that as clearly as I can to my own
government back in Washington. That involved getting to know as many people as
possible around the country, every sphere of influence.
And then the third part of my job is to try to explain to the
government here – perhaps more informally, but again as clearly as I can – what
my view is about how things are going between our two governments, where the
problems are, where they’re gonna come bubbling up and become really difficult
issues and how you can head those off, help them understand the ‘why’ not just
‘what’ is going on in Washington. And if I’ve done that, I think I have done a
good service. I take it as my job to understand what’s going on there, and not
just the good news, but the bad news too.
KP: Talking about bad news, let’s talk
about sanctions. How likely are we to see sanctions against Ukraine?
JT: Right now, it’s not the Administration’s policy to impose
sanctions. There are a lot of
people – including Ukrainians who I talk to privately – who see the issue of
sanctions as not a very easily sorted out thing. There are people in the
opposition who have said that sanctions are not a very smart thing, and they
made that very clear.
KP: Nevertheless, you’re applying
sanctions to individuals, namely Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin. You
personally had to inform his about his visa being revokes. How did you feel
about delivering a message like that?
JT: No comment. I am not going to get into that. I don’t take
pleasure in anyone losing a visa. My goal is the more people we get to the
States, the better. The more we can do with government officials meeting with
our people, the better off it is because it’s better communication. I am not
going to get into Kuzmin’s case here, I think most of it has been reported in
the press here.
KP: You have mentioned in previous
interviews that there are more people like Kuzmin who can’t get visas. I
understand that you cannot discuss personal cases, but you can at least tell us
how many there are.
JT: I don’t actually even know totally how many there are. But
over the years – and this goes way back before me – this goes back to cases
when people were involved in corruption, or organized crime and things like
that, that are reasons for disqualification for visas. I don’t exactly even
know what the total number is.
You’re talking mainly about high-level wealthy people, but there
are also lots of other people who are not necessarily of a high political-in-the-newspaper-every-day
kind of person. There are others who have been involved in these things who are
also disqualifiable under our visa system.
KP: Petro Kirichenko, who gave a
testimony against Tymoshenko, gave a contradictory testimony in 2013 compared
to what he said in 2001. How will it affect him in the US?
JT: I think this is an issue the Justice Department has to look
at. He got his status in the States as I understand during the trial (of Pavlo
Lazarenko). Whether he is complying or not with the rules and terms of the
agreement, that’s a Justice Department call. I have asked the question, I don’t
know what their answer on these things is yet.
KP: What if they discover he’s not
complying. What happens next?
JT: This is a special kind of law, and very unique kinds of cases
they would have to determine. As far as I understand, it would depend on the
term of the actual agreement.
KP: You’re leaving Ukraine as this
part of the world becomes less important for the US foreign policy. How do you
feel about it?
JT: I don’t accept the premise of your question. We have got a lot
of problems in the world. We’re a global power and we have to deal with them.
But I still think that what happens in Eastern Europe is of
fundamental strategic importance to the United States, and I am talking
obviously about our relationship with Russia, as well as Ukraine and others. We
have invested a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of effort into trying to
help the transition.
Each of the countries goes at its own pace. (As for Ukraine), the
country still needs a better election law, the country still needs to develop
the rules of the game, a political culture which works, which many of the other
countries in this part of the world have.
Building democratic institutions is a hard, hard deal. Especially
if you have a group of people who are still in power in many parts of the
former Soviet Union whose formative and main adult experiences were in the
Soviet Union, with a Soviet mentality and all of that entailed.
So, I have a certain sympathy and an understanding for how long it
changes and how long change takes. At the same time, I feel that unless you
keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing – it isn’t going to change.
KP: Where exactly does Ukraine stand
in terms of priorities for the US foreign policy?
JT: I think Ukraine is still viewed by many in Washington as a
vital, strategic part of Europe. Why is the EU spending so much time trying to
make sure this Association Agreement comes into place? It’s because Ukraine has
this absolutely critical spot in the center of Europe.
KP: Where do you see Ukraine, and
Ukraine-US relations, in 10 years’ time?
JT: I’d like to think Ukraine will be certainly an associate
member of the EU, how exactly it goes after that is hard to predict because
that depends on a whole set of assumptions about Europe.
We have two sets of matras here that are not just words. One is
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state.
But I think building the institutions of a country that has
democracy, market economy and the rule of law – that takes longer.
There is still a fundamental pluralism in this country. There is a
vibrant civil society in this country. There are still independent voices in
the press which are vital for the future of this country.
What the United States has tried to do pretty consistently for the
last 22 years is to try to support those forces and to urge the government –
whichever one is in power – to move forward on that agenda. And to think that
we’re going to do something different in the future is just wrong.
KP: Do you ever get the sense that the
US and the whole democratic world has lost the battle in Ukraine?
JT: I don’t think we’re losing the fight. (There are) setbacks, I
hope that that will change. I hope that we will be able to have free and fair
elections in 2015. I am still hopeful.
I think you can still make
the case that the elections last October, while they were flawed, you ended up
with a result where the opposition is in a stronger position than they were in
the previous parliament. Different people will have different assessment of
that, but it shows that the democracy is still out there.
