“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those
who remain neutral in time of great moral crisis,” so said a Ukrainian
businessman in Davos on the day when for the
first time in the modern history of Ukraine, people died during protests on Jan. 22.
The
businessman did not want to comment any further, but he was ready to listen and
looked sincerely concerned and confused at the prospect of further violence
back home.
The World Economic Forum in Davos is all about
off-the-record comments, especially if you have been invited there as a
participant. The annual meeting in Davos is the place where those with money
and power meet: 50 heads of states, thousands of CEOs, and members of
international organisations, labour and nongovernmental organization leaders. The participation fee of
27,000 Swiss francs (€22,000) is waived for governments and political leaders.
Some of the sessions are televised, but most take place under Chatham House
rules – reporters are free to quote from the discussion, but are not allowed to
say who made which comment.
The
main talks in the corridors
“I’ve talked to Cathy Ashton and Sergei Lavrov
today,” the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland,
commented at the final reception, referring to the European Union foreign policy chief and Russian foreign minister. “I had a very long talk with President (Viktor) Yanukovych. I did not use the word ‘sanction’, but ‘consequences.”
The
President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso reported during a
dinner devoted to the future of Europe. He was thinking about effectiveness of
sanctions in a long term.
The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, mentioned that
Ukrainians were risking their European choice in his final remarks at The New
Europe Context discussion, in front of several heads of state, key politicians
and bankers, including the Swedish and Finnish prime ministers, the Italian minister for foreign affairs, the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, and
European bankers.
During his short talk, Mark Rutte also recalled his
meeting with the post-Soviet leaders of Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev, and
Georgia’s new prime minister, Irakli Garibashvili, who were “deeply shocked by
what’s happening in Ukraine,” and meanwhile the Finnish prime minister Jyrki
Katainen was considering a visit to Ukraine.
The Swedish foreign minister
sounded very well in touch during all the informal talks on the latest
developments in Ukraine, from the number of casualties to the takeovers of the
regional councils.
The US Senator Bob Corker, ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, admitted that he endorsed expanding US sanctions against
those involved in violence and suppression of civil liberties in Ukraine after
a few conversations in Davos:
“It is clear President Yanukovych and the actions
of the Ukrainian government, modeled on Russian policies to criminalise and
crack down on protests, have led to a violent escalation of what had been
peaceful demonstrations, threatening the political and economic stability of
the Ukrainian state. He must do his part to bring an end to this violence by
convening parliament to repeal repressive laws, and by constructively engaging
the political opposition in finding a peaceful end to this crisis.”
There were not many discussions about sanctions,
but rather expressions of grief, a clear understanding that Ukraine is at a
crossroads, strong support for the people on the street, but mainly urgency to
stop further violence.
Yet there was a different tone in the
off-the-record discussions. The idea was not about just targeted sanctions
against those who are directly involved in human rights abuses, but also
against those who can influence the situation.
Sources in Davos say that there is a general
understanding that Yanukovych is not ready to give up his power under
any circumstances.
“So, the main pressure should be put not on Yanukovych
himself, but on those whom he depends on: the oligarchs,and in particular
Dmytro Firtash and Rinat Akhmetov.”
It is not that there had been no pressure, but that
its demands had been rather soft – both from European governments and Ukrainian
civil society – compare to the pressure from the other side.
In recent days European
officials decided to put stronger pressure on Ukraine via European banks and
corporations, especially in Germany.
There is a general feeling that both
businessmen have expressed their interest in further and long-term co-operation
with European partners, which would only be possible if Ukraine remains a
stable democratic state. The banks have been encouraged to review their
due-diligence process vis-à-vis their Ukrainian partners according to a 2006
European directive about financial transparency.
“Mr. Akhmetov and Mr. Firtash
are strong backers of a regime which gives orders to kill the people. These two
oligarchs control up to 70 members of the Ukrainian parliament. The resignation
of the president at any time will depend on them. Thus the clients of big
European banks like Deutsche Bank, UniCredit and Raiffeisen are what is called
‘politically exposed’ people. This means these banks may be considered to be
indirectly exposed. So this is the weak point,” one source said, and another
confirmed.
The name of another Ukrainian oligarch was often mentioned: Vadim
Novinsky, the owner of Smart Holding Group, a billionaire, a member of the
Party of Regions, and a personal friend of Viktor Yanukovych. So far Novinsky
had been seen as the right hand of Rinat Akhmetov and was not treated as an
independent player.
If you are not a Ukrainian, or an interested party,
the modest Ukrainian presence at Davos would not have been worth mentioning –
especially compared to the large Russian delegation numbering almost 80 people:
bankers and investors, who gave traditionally luxurious Russian parties, this
time promoting the upcoming Winter Olympics in Sochi.
Actually, Andrey Kostin –
currently the president and chairman of the management board of VTB Bank – was
one of those opening the forum by introducing the performance of the St.
Petersburg Mariinsky Theater Orchestra, under the prominent conductor Valery
Gergiev. Later, Barroso made a remark that “Russians really try look nice,
friendly and co-operative during the direct talks with the EU officials.
The
guest star of the 2014 meeting was the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani,
while the World Economic Forum people, as this was the first forum since the global financial
crises, expected more free discussions where inclusive growth, embracing
disruptive innovation or “sustaining a world of 9 billion” would be the key
topics.
Initially Ukraine was not supposed to be a hot
topic.
The Ukrainian opposition leader, Vitali Klitchko cancelled his visit to
Davos to hold talks with Yanukovych.
Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who had
been organising the Ukrainian Days in Davos, reduced his programme this time to
a philanthropic lunch, inviting the former chief executive and current chairman
of Microsoft Bill Gates, the English magnate Richard Branson and Bangladesh’s
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohammed Yunus.
This event was organised outside the
forum, but took place in Davos. And indeed started with condolences to those who
died in Kyiv.
The first Ukrainian event was an informal
discussion organised by the forum, at which ‘Scenarios for Ukraine’
should have been presented.
These were based on a wide stakeholder consultation
facilitated by the World Economic Forum over the course of the year through a
series of interviews, thematic workshops with more than 300 decision-makers,
business and civil society leaders, as well as leading experts from Ukraine and
beyond, all of whom explored different perspectives on how global, regional and
domestic development may transform Ukraine in the decades ahead.
The findings
are considered to be valid independently of whichever political path Ukraine
will take in the future. Yet on that day, an off-the-record session turned into
an emotional dissection of Ukraine’s political crisis, beginning with a moment
of silence for the protesters announced by Poroshenko, a long-time politician and former foreign minister.
Martin Schultz – the
President of the European Parliament – made this action public. There were a
few Ukrainian officials, such as Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Boyko, who came
under siege from concerned Western officials; while Sergey Lyovochkin, the
former head of the presidential administration and currently an advisor to the
president, refused to comment.
“The Ukrainian Outlook,” a session dedicated to
Ukraine, was the only Ukrainian panel held in the Congress Hall. Yet it was
told to be the most exciting for organisers, as the participants kept on
changing. The audience was not the least of the attraction: the CEOs of
Ukrainian companies, some European bankers, press secretaries of European heads
of state and foreign ministers who were support to report to their bosses,
Russian politicians and business representatives, the directors of the biggest
think-thanks.
The key speaker was Poroshenko who brought a
rubber bullet in and gave a few examples of the police’s brutality. He took the,lead and he was also among those urging the freezing of assets and the launch
of investigations into money laundering among members of the Ukrainian
government in response to the deaths.
Yanukovych decided not to go just
over than a month before the forum; at first he intended to send the
Vice Prime Minister Sergei Arbuzov, but later he chose Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, as his
name disappeared and then reappeared in the program me.
Finally the prime
minister arrived, but he didn’t attend any event within the forum. He booked
the Hotel National, about a mile down the road from the Congress Hall, for the
meeting; and stayed in Switzerland for three days, up to the time he was
supposed to make his contribution to ‘The Ukrainian Outlook.’
There were rumurs that the World Economic Forum in
Davos had withdrawn an invitation to the Ukrainian prime minister. This news
was made public.
Yet David Aikman, the managing director and head of New
Champions at the World Economic Forum, insisted that this couldn’t have
happened as it is not done. People at Davos are ready
to listen to anybody, but – according to the rules – just those who are ready
to answer questions. Once in history the Forum refused to invite (but not to
withdraw) a speechfrom the former Iranian president Ahmadinejad, as he wanted
to give a speech without any discussion.
Still, Mr. Azarov’s visit remained mysterious as he
– the only government official invited to the Forum – didn’t appear inside the
Congress Hall. He had a discussion with Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate;
Jorma Ollila, the chairman of Shell, and a representative of the Carlsberg
Group. Yet to the Financial Times, who called his visit humiliating, Mr. Azarov
replied: “The forum had a unique opportunity to listen to the head of
government of Ukraine, to get a wider point of view – it’s hard to tell who
lost more in this affair.” The French newspaper Le Monde was surprised by Mr.
Azarov comment that ”the Ukrainian government decided not to sign the EU
Agreement even though a considerable part of the population supported it,” paying attention at that time the head of the government himself admitted it
was “a considerable part” of the society.
Instead of Ukrainian officials, the Ukrainian panel
was presented by the former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox and
the former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who since 2011 have been
monitoring the mission to Ukraine, sent by Martin Schultz.
Both came to Davos
because of the recent protests, and talked to the members of Ukrainian
opposition as well those from the government. Both were concerned, but this time
pessimistic, talking about the legitimacy of current government. The main
message of their discussion concerned possible ways of resolving the political
deadlock, and of creating a body which could act as a mediator in Ukraine to
stop the bloodshed. The idea of proper mediation which would bring security was
probably the most clearly expressed in the open discussions.
Another guest of
the session, the former head of NATO Javier Solana, recalled the ‘roundtable’
which took place in Ukraine during the 2004 Orange Revolution with Leonid Kuchma,
Kwasniewski and the then Russian ambassador Viktor Chernomyrdin. According to
Solana this model could still work. Yet Kwasniewski mentioned soon afterwards
that the current Ukrainian president looks less interested in negotiation than
the Polish General Wojciech Jaruzelski, who agreed to hold round table talks
with Solidarity’s representatives in the 1980s.
Solana was proposing a similar model, as
according to him Ukraine is facing two choices – either the government listens
to the people, as happened in Brazil after the recent mass unrest; or it
follows the Syrian scenario. For the Ukrainians among the audience that seemed
like a highly unlikely development, but the international audience picked up
exactly that remark.
Nataliya Gumenyuk is a foreign correspondent who also works for Hromadske TV.
