And, in Pinchuk’s words, “Oligarchy is when big business
assumes the power to govern, or exerts influence on political power in opaque
ways”. Business and politics must be separate, says Pinchuk, although admittedly
he had made his share of mistakes.
In real world, big business exerts enormous influence on
government In many countries, albeit not in such a brazen ways as in Ukraine in the last 20
years. It is not an exaggeration to observe that the influence of the oligarchs
in the United States has been steadily on the rise in the same time span, and
has now reached a level reminiscent of the “robber baron” age near the end of
the 19th century.
But, not surprisingly, the differences overshadow
similarities. In the US, money changes hands between legislators and lobbies
mainly by way of election campaign contributions, which come from diverse
interest sources, such as business, labor unions, and wealthy individuals,
aiming to push legislation to their liking. Some say most members of Congress
are owned by lobbies.
I need not say how money travels in Ukraine, only mention
that corrupt judiciary plays a big role.
Nevertheless, Pinchuk
is right on target, because Ukraine’s oligarchs, the judges, and
government officials are often in the same basket. Conflicts such as business raiding are often
not solvable in any honest way. Lustration law is being sabotaged on the grounds
of alleged rights violations, and so on and on.
Ukrainian general prosecutor Vitaly Yarema doesn’t seem to
be helping much to implement lustration. Also, he apparently has been slow in
filing charges against Ukraine’s former high officials for crimes they
allegedly committed, included murder and corruption. Could it be that President
Petro Poroshenko needs to appoint a hard-nosed prosecutor of foreign origin to that
position?
The president recently made three excellent appointments of
foreigners for key government jobs (and granted them Ukrainian citizenship).
Wise move, assuming they have strong stomachs and will not soon resign in
disgust, as did several promising appointees a few months ago.
Meanwhile the economic crisis and the menace of larger war
with Russia are on the screen. Behavior of Reichsfuerer Putin remains
unpredictable, despite mountains of analysis by the media’s leading
poli-science and psycho-specialists.
A puzzling ground-breaking idea was revealed recently by
Leonid Bershidsky, writing that Putin can be brought to reason by unilaterally cancelling
the sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and the European Union (“Lift sanctions now to humiliate Putin,” Bloomberg View, Dec. 17). But those who don’t dig it suggest first to ask Putin directly whether or not this approach would work. And, in fact, US
Secretary of State John Kerry said at least once that sanctions would be lifted
if Putin withdraws his troops from east Ukraine. Kerry received no response,
despite not mentioning Crimea.
“Putin is not looking to back down over Ukraine…….His
message for Russians is to brace themselves for two years of economic
hardship,” wrote Timothy Ash in the Kyiv Post on Dec. 18. On same subject,
“Defiant Putin blames West for Russia’s economic woes,” headlined the Financial
Times, Dec. 19.
Could it be that Russia’s president is counting to outlast
the fickle European solidarity outreach for Ukraine ? His reliance is on the nationalism
of the Russians. Europe has no similar unifying force while some countries in
Europe feel pain from the same sanctions.
If in doubt, sample the voices from European Union Council meeting on
Dec. 18. “EU leaders warn against too much economic pain for Russia (Los
Angeles Times”, Dec. 19) — while
Ukrainian soldiers continue to be killed in Donbas. EU foreign policy chief
Federica Magherini warned that “pushing Russia into a deeper economic crisis is
in nobody’s interest.” Austrian chancellor and Italian prime minister expressed
similar opinions.
On Dec. 19, German foreign minister Frank Steinmeier
observed: “To those who want to force Russia to its knees with further
sanctions in the misguided belief that will bolster European security, let me
warn against it.”
“Forcing Russia to its knees” sounds very much like
Steinmeier’s allegory for resisting Putin’s agenda of destroying post-World War II international order. As
such it is nothing less than a swipe at Barack Obama’s and Angela Merkel’s
strategy to defang Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. It also raises a question mark about
Steinmeier’s grasp of European security issues.
To top it off, the EU Council reached no agreement for
financial aid to close Ukraine’s $15 billion budget gap, much less consider the
huge cost of defense against Russia’s ongoing aggression.
Ukraine might as well concentrate on what it can do —
building its army and becoming very serious about removing from power the
remnants of Yanukovych regime.
Back to Victor Pinchuk’s tough anticorruption act. Any
suggestions how to actually get it moving? Here is one: President Poroshenko
needs to start throwing some guys off the bridge. He has sufficient prestige
and authority to make it easier than it is made out to be by phony,
self-serving civil rights arguments. Some from that crowd need to be dumped
first, noting that they are occasionally the same who were helping suppress the civil rights under the Yanukovych
regime. Most of all, a clean sweep needs
to be made with 90 percent of the judiciary pack.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
