See the video of the event here.
The American Chamber of Commerce of Ukraine, known as AmCham, billed the Feb. 5 event as the 2019 Annual Members Appreciation Reception.
But it was really a campaign rally for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s re-election in the March 31 vote.
The optimistic star speakers were the candidate himself, Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch.
AmCham president Andy Hunder, a British citizen of Ukrainian descent, and AmCham board of directors chair Lenna Koszarny, a Canadian-Ukrainian, served as the adoring co-hosts. The speakers praised the dialogue between the government and business community, but engaged only in monologue – they spoke while the few hundred people assembled in the Hilton Kyiv listened.
Nobody formally or explicitly endorsed Poroshenko’s re-election, but everyone got the message: The president is doing a great job.
The pep rally may have been meant to help shore up Poroshenko’s standing. Some polls show that the president may not even make it to the April 21 second-round runoff. Ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy are more popular than Poroshenko after almost five years in power.
But it may have backfired. Some AmCham members were unamused by the spectacle.
One member told me that he didn’t approve of what he saw: the organization essentially endorsing a sitting president. Another said that she came away more determined than ever to vote against Poroshenko. A third remarked that Poroshenko needs to take better care of current investors, who still face problems, before he has any hope of attracting new foreign investment.
Unfortunately, the American Chamber of Commerce and my American government are making the same mistakes as they have in the past. They are inserting themselves where they shouldn’t this close to an election. At best, it won’t make any difference to how Ukrainians vote. At worst, it may trigger a backlash among the Ukrainian electorate.
The show reminded me of five years ago, when one of Hunder’s predecessors, Jorge Zukoski, who served from 1998 to 2014, stood by the corrupt ex-President Viktor Yanukovych to the end. Zukoski wrongly dismissed the EuroMaidan Revolution as orchestrated by a bunch of “wackos.” Zukoski turned the business organization over to Bernard Casey, a pro-Kremlin stooge who quietly got the boot after serving less than a year in 2014. In that time, Casey damaged the organization with his alarming views that the EuroMaidan Revolution was a coup and that Russia was justified in annexing Crimea. Casey expounded on those views in a March 22, 2015, op-ed published by the Kyiv Post under the headline “Last chance for peace in Ukraine.”
Hunder, who along with Koszarny is a great patriot with Ukrainian ancestry, is a big improvement over his predecessor and, yes, Poroshenko is a clear improvement over his predecessor. But Hunder is still stepping on the same rake as Zukoski did with Yanukovych.
Yovanovitch’s remarks were more restrained, but also reminiscent of past U.S. mistakes in soft-pedaling serious problems and exaggerating successes. She said that “Ukraine has made tremendous progress” on the “path of reform that brings peace and prosperity.” The entire transcript of her remarks is available on the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s website.
It brought to mind ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt, one of the best diplomats I’ve ever met and Yovanovitch’s predecessor. He had the thankless task of carrying out the ill-fated U.S. policy of negotiating a deal with Yanukovych in the final days of the EuroMaidan Revolution. An agreement was struck to keep Yanukovych in power, just hours before the autocrat who plundered for four years fled to his Moscow masters on Feb. 22, 2014. The Ukrainian people wanted nothing to do with any deal that kept Yanukovych in power.
There’s an unfortunate history of my country tending to prefer the status quo, no matter how unpopular or corrupt, over the uncertain will of the people of another nation.
The unhappy episodes include the late ex-U.S. President George H.W. Bush’s 1991 “Chicken Kyiv” speech, warning Ukraine against breaking off from the Soviet Union, last led by his friend Mikhail Gorbachev. It includes the likes of ex-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warning against the breakup of the Soviet Union, saying it would destabilize the world order. It goes far back in time, to many nations.
But throughout history, the people who represent these institutions and governments have proven to be flexible and resilient in the face of new realities.
If Poroshenko loses, Hunder, Koszarny and Yovanovitch will no doubt try to ingratiate themselves with whomever the Ukrainian people elect as the president in a free and fair election. They will have no other choice, really.
But the freeness and fairness of the election is in doubt if the insiders club of Westerners tries to tip the scales in favor of the incumbent, as they look to be doing now.
I remember 1996, when the West aided and abetted the unpopular Boris Yeltsin in bribing and cheating his way to victory over communist Gennadiy Zyuganov. I understand and agree with the anti-communist stance, but such interference makes preaching free and fair elections very difficult, not to mention hypocritical, afterwards for a democracy.
I was working in Donetsk Oblast during the 1999 Ukrainian presidential election, as the political analyst for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s election mission. It was there when I first met Yanukovych, then the regional governor, and talked to him for an hour.
Ex-President Leonid Kuchma cheated his way to victory in the first round, using dirty tricks to make sure that the more popular Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz was defeated in the primary. This set up the runoff match-up that Kuchma wanted against Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko. The West, collectively, including the U.S. government, was not particularly interested in a free and fair election under those circumstances, as long as Kuchma won.
With past as prologue, I hope Western policymakers and election observers make sure that Ukrainians are able to choose their next president in 2019 as freely and fairly as possible. Anything less does a disservice to democratic elections and the people of Ukraine. Voters will be justifiably harsh and unforgiving with anyone interfering with their elections. If Poroshenko wins, he must do it fairly and squarely.
But let’s go back to the lovefest at the Hilton Kyiv.
Poroshenko was certainly feeling the love. “No president of Ukraine could feel such support from business as I feel now,” he said.
Koszarny should also have been feeling the love. “You definitely have the support of the president,” Poroshenko almost crooned to her.
Hunder was certainly giving love. “Whatever direction I travel I see success stories,” Hunder effused.
Then, with what sounded like a lament, Hunder said: “Lena (Koszarny), myself and others don’t have a right to vote, but we are observing how the results will influence the investment climate in Ukraine.”
Yovanovitch also contributed to the cozy atmosphere by telling the crowd: “At the risk of speaking for the president and prime minister, Ukraine’s political leadership takes your views very seriously.”
Oh, of course, there were a few nitpicky complaints.
Yovanovitch, after extolling the progress under Poroshenko, brought up the “c” word – corruption.
“Despite the many reforms that Ukraine has achieved since 2014, corruption remains a powerful obstacle to realizing the dream of turning Ukraine into a completely modern European economy,” Yovanovitch said. “That is why Ukraine’s achievement in passing legislation to establish the High Anti-Corruption Court, and the ongoing selection process of justices to that court, is so important.”
Hunder, after rattling off praise, conceded: “Not everything is still ideal. There are problems and we are still working on resolving them.” One of those problems? “Rule of law.”
Even Poroshenko allowed that judicial reform (which he stalled for years) remains unfinished.
Corruption. Rule of law. Judicial reform.
But why should friends dwell on such trifles, these scattered potholes on the smoothly paved road to democracy?
Koszarny, whose Horizon Capital benefits from the investment of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation, was as polite as always.
“Your presence here tonight is a sign of respect to the business community,” Koszarny said to Poroshenko and Groysman. “We truly appreciate that.”
The hour-long event came to an abrupt end with no time for audience questions. Koszarny took to the podium to tell the chamber members, including representatives of the Kyiv Post, that she didn’t want to “stand between you and the reception.”
Everything is so great that there is no reason to bother the president and prime minister with pesky complaints or questions.
So, please, eat, drink, be merry and, oh yes, just one more thing: Be sure to vote the right way!
