I was there that cold December night when Yushchenko promised the multitudes on Independence Square that “every cell” in his body would be committed to Ukraine’s well-being. I believed him then and I believe him now.
The problem is not one of good intentions. The problem is one of follow-through. He, like Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, should have assembled the top oligarchs in the country and warned them – in no uncertain terms – to stay out of politics. He should have selected experienced professionals to head up his agencies. And he should have put into place a monitoring and reporting system to ensure that his eloquent words and prudent goals would take root.
Even now it is not too late for Yushchenko to salvage the centerpiece of his foreign policy and the only viable guarantor of Ukraine’s independence: NATO membership. As long as four out of five Ukrainians remain ignorant or misinformed on NATO, there is little hope that Europe will extend membership, or that Ukraine’s future political leaders will replicate Yushchenko’s principled stand on this issue.
In the last two years of the Kuchma administration, popular support for NATO membership was higher than popular opposition. Even Yanukovich, as prime minister, helped draft a strategic plan for Ukraine’s entry into NATO concurrently with a broad-based public information campaign. Now, four years into the Yushchenko administration, even that support has eroded while NATO opponents (primarily Russia) control Ukraine’s information “space,” and pro-NATO civic groups have trouble being heard above the din of hecklers and protestors.
Although the government had budgeted several million dollars in the past for public information campaigns, and Western donors have contributed additional millions in support of NATO information centers, literature, public forums and similar projects, nothing has been done to monitor the use of these funds or their effectiveness. For example, in 2006 the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting was allocated over one million dollars to inform citizens about Euro-Atlantic integration issues. Yet, as one long-time observer had noted: “One would have searched Ukrainian television in vain for a single information-commercial about NATO.” In addition, claims have been made that public funding for NATO information programs had been diverted or left unspent.
The recently enacted budget contains $6 million for a public information program spread over a four-year period with a stated goal of 55 percent support for NATO membership. The amount falls far short of what is needed to offset the vitriolic propaganda and threats emanating from the Kremlin. But even this amount may be largely wasted without careful monitoring and control at the presidential or National Security Council level.
The president needs to appoint a public-relations-savvy “NATO Information Czar” reporting directly to him and responsible for the preparation and implementation of a detailed, well-coordinated, far-reaching schedule and plan for raising public support of NATO to at least 55 percent of the population. Such a plan would include participation by civic groups, influential foreign policy experts, journalists, etc. and involve the full range of activities – from television ads and forums to local assemblies and information posters. The president should appeal directly to business groups in Ukraine to contribute to a private fund set up for this purpose, and invite NATO countries to assist in this effort.
Yushchenko has stated that there is “no greater challenge” for the country’s elite than NATO and EU membership. He has stood almost alone against the host of opportunists and timid souls ready to trade the nation’s security for profit and “good relations” with Russia. But unless and until he can show that he is prepared to support this position with time, money and political capital, Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership will remain just words.
George Woloshyn, a native of Kupnovychi, Ukraine, is an American citizen living in Linden, Virginia.
