In 1987, Malcolm Baldridge, U.S. Commerce Secretary, fell from a horse while practicing rodeo events and died. No one thought it was murder. He was, after all, an experienced cowhand, as well as political appointee. It was simply a tragic and quirky accident.
If a prominent Ukrainian politician were to fall from his figurative horse, questions would abound. From whence did the steed come? What party affiliation was the horse? Was the horse given any pill that would make him anxious? Is it coincidence that other politicians have fallen from their horses?
And, of course, was it a stolen horse?
Such is the perception and the reality of Ukraine. When the two are negatively aligned, which sadly is the case, any quirk of fate, any happening, any seismic phenom, tends to create a downward perception spiral. In other words, even Ukraine's good deeds are looked on with suspicion.
In marketing terms, Ukraine is a tarnished brand. In terms of global politics, it is becoming irrelevant. In other words, there are those that think it a hopeless case, and why bother in a global alignment where President Bush can call Russian President Putin to discuss terrorist woes and caviar prices.
Through much of the 1990s, there was the feeling that Ukraine was part of the balance of power. For one glorious flicker, there was talk of Ukraine having the best chance at superstardom among the newly independent nations. Hope ran like a gazelle through a rhinestone prairie.
NATO membership. Ascendancy to the European Union. Both appeared possible as Communism was shucked aside for the promised democratic institutions. Somewhere along the way, this hope evaporated. The reservoir of goodwill vanished.
One gets the impression today that leadership of Ukraine is not a single person, nor several people, but an amalgam of special interests orbiting power centers. The confederacies appear almost tribal in nature, based not on cultural identities but on the accumulation of wealth. And holding on to that wealth.
After a decade of institutionalized stagnation, one has to wonder if there can be a sea-change. In Russia, the mercurial leader Boris Yeltsin five years ago bequeathed something totally unexpected to his people. Putin, a virtually unknown former KGB careerist , became prime minister and then President.
In Diaspora conversation in Ukraine, there is the dim hope that Ukraine has something similar in store. They hope against hope that a Faustian deal has been struck between President Leonid Kuchma and the West's great hope, former central banker and one-time prime minister Victor Yushchenko.
I personally doubt this is in the cards. If it is, then both men deserve academy awards for brilliant performances, for there seems to be no love lost between the two. However, politics is the art of the possible and stranger bedfellows have dotted history's landscape.
The more likely scenario is the status quo, regardless of what form it takes. There is talk of a Parliamentary Republic -- where the president is chosen by the Rada -- but this conjures Darwinian images too dark to ponder. That there will be a hand-picked candidate by the president and his allies will move heaven and earth to get him elected seems a more logical path.
But, admittedly, we're just guessing here. Neither option seems to pilot Ukraine out of a long-standing morass. We prefer something more naively fascinating, something that might be concocted in Fantasyland, but to this writer seems imminently practical, though probably not doable.
This is simply that the most dominant of those orbiting interests mentioned above -- those oligarchs close to the current president - be convinced that their own interests lies somewhere beyond the length of a blindman's cane. In other words, do the right thing. It feels good, and by the way, it's your future.
This would, of course, take true believers in long-term realities. It wouldn't hurt that they gave more than a passing nod to the democratic process, including the rule of law and the notion that money kept in Ukraine might just possibly be a good investment.
Our view is that the various officials that fly into Kyiv -- whether from the EU, the various lending institutions, the various secretaries of this and that -- tend to talk to the cardboard pop-ups, and not necessarily to the various personalities who, in reality, have equal or more influence.
This is not to say that herein lies the answers, only to suggest that this is where the questions start. This is my perception. Can reality be far behind.
|
