Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 5:02 p.m. to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations generally.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will be meeting for one hour, and I will be adjourning this meeting at six o'clock, for a host of reasons.
Honourable senators, I will be brief with my introduction. I would like to welcome to the committee His Excellency, Mykola Maimeskul. With His Excellency are Mr. Vadym Prystaiko and Mr. Andriy Yahodovskyi.
We are all aware of the current crisis in Ukraine. At least, it appears to many of us to be a crisis. His Excellency speaks French fluently, and since we are a bilingual institution and country we can hear presentations in whichever of our two official languages suits the occasion. We have simultaneous translation so there will be no difficulty whatsoever.
I would suggest, Your Excellency, that perhaps you might give us a ten minute presentation on the situation, then I and my colleagues will ask you some questions. Therefore, not to waste any time, Your Excellency, please proceed.
[Translation]
His Excellency Mykola Maimeskul, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to Canada, Ukrainian Embassy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I would like to say hello to the representatives of the Ukrainian community. I think they are here in the room.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you as well as all of the others that it is an honour to appear before this Senate committee. Added to this pleasure and this honour is the fact that on December 1, 13 years ago, the Ukrainian people spoke out in great numbers, 93 per cent, in favour of the independence of Ukraine. Today, December 1st, is the anniversary of the historic Ukrainian referendum.
Mr. Chairman, my country finds itself in a dramatic situation. It is essential that we have the support of Canada, a country based on democratic values that, as you have witnessed in these past days, are also dear to the hearts of my fellow countrymen. I must admit that I do not feel very comfortable sitting in this room at a time when hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are marching in the cold streets of Kiev or other cities in Ukraine. Why? They are not indifferent to what is happening in their country, their principles do not allow them to accept the very thought that their choice might have been misrepresented, and they want a better future for their children.
As I say this, I am thinking of my countrymen, of all of my citizens. I come from the south of Ukraine, from Odessa, where quite lately and most suddenly, there has been talk of a possible separation from Ukraine. That is today, I am convinced, the most dangerous trend, a very serious speculation about my country.
We can talk about possible economic consequences arising from what is happening in the country. I think these can be minimized. I think we will avoid a physical, head-on collision. We are aware of the position not to resort to violence, the peaceful stand of the orange opponents, of the army and of the police.
But the threat to divide the country represents a serious danger, for my country, for Central Europe and for Europe in general. We are, of course, well aware of our responsibility to our neighbours and to the international community. This is something that is taken quite seriously by Ukraine's foreign affairs department. In this context, I would like to explain the last steps taken by the President of Ukraine, who has warned those in charge of certain regions of eastern Ukraine about separatist activities.
I am pleased to inform you that most of the local heads have not kept their word and have become politicized and excessively emotional in their appeals. They continue to talk about possible referenda on the change of status for their territory by playing to the emotions of the voters who feel that they have been duped, or robbed. I must admit that some foreign politicians have taken the opportunity to try, as they say, to take advantage of this situation by positioning themselves as defenders of the interests of the Russian population in eastern Ukraine. We think this is playing a dangerous political game. That is why the foreign affairs department in the Ukraine issued, on Monday, a statement to prohibit that action. That is why the representative from the Russian embassy in Kiev was called to the department to be given a clarification.
I believe that a strong stand by the international community and legislative institutions will play an important role in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I did not want to take up too much of your time by giving you a chronology of the events in Ukraine. The Canadian media have kept us up-to-date and they are being extremely thorough.
I wanted to deal with some key elements of the situation in Ukraine. As you are no doubt aware, the presidential run-off election was held on November 21. According to the Central Election Commission, the outgoing prime minister, Mr. Yanukovych, was proclaimed the winner with 3 per cent more of the votes.
I would like to emphasize this, shall we say, official fact, based on statistical data, without examining irregularities. At the same time, the opposition has serious arguments to prove that forgeries had not been taken into account by the central commission. They decided not to recognize the results.
The parallel voting count in the central square in Kiev became a huge civil protest action. Today, in the streets of the capital, there remain almost one-half million protestors, and almost every one of them supports the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko. For a number of days, they have been occupying the central administration buildings.
Sometime later, a large number of prime minister Yanukovych's supporters arrived in Kiev to support their candidate. Until now, these two movements have been keeping to themselves and there is an almost peaceful coexistence; they are managing to get along. I hope with all of my heart and I am confident that this situation will remain under control until this political crisis is settled.
Some regional heads, as I said a few moments ago, particularly in the east of my country, have taken advantage of the current situation to enhance their own popularity or to satisfy their candidate and have announced that their region will eventually separate, even going so far as to create some type of so-called republic of the south-east, or something similar.
The vision of sovereignty varies from one region to another. I spoke of this dangerous trend as well as the role of certain visitors, politicians from the neighbouring country. In reacting to this massive action, the authorities are doing what they have to do. I am referring to Parliament, to the Supreme Court in Ukraine. Let me answer some of the questions you might have about this. The legal mechanisms to annul election results are very limited. So far, the Supreme Court has examined the complaint about the violations, the voting irregularities, and we are anxiously awaiting their decision. The Supreme Court will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. That will be the fourth day of their hearings.
At the same time, any compromise or alternate solution to the crisis can be found in the political framework. You know that the first political steps have already been taken. I am speaking about the Parliament. In an extraordinary session, on Saturday, November 27, Parliament adopted a motion stating it did not recognize the legitimacy of the vote as representing the will of the Ukrainian people. As for the president, he felt that it was possible to have a recount in the regions, to determine whether or not any fraud had occurred or even have a new election, if the results are, and I emphasize this fact, rendered invalid by the Supreme Court. We await the decision.
According to the latest news, the opposition yesterday refused to continue the talks which, as we know, were organized with the help of international mediators, because, they say that the authorities are simply trying to drag things out before arriving at a solution. Today, the international mediators are in Kiev to help get the negotiations going again.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I know that this is important, we have just received information on the result of the roundtable that took place two or three hours ago. There is the text that was agreed upon by both parties in the negotiation. I will emphasize the more important points that have resulted from this roundtable.
The parties, not only the two opponents, Mr. Yushchenko and Mr. Yanukovych were present, but also the president of Ukraine, the Parliament's speaker, the representatives of the European Union, Mr. Solanas, the president of Poland, Mr. Kwasnievski of Lithuania, Mr. Adamkus, and the Secretary General of the OSCE were also present at the meeting.
The participants have agreed on the following points. First of all, they precluded — I have already mentioned this, but it is in today's text — any use of force. Second, blockades will be removed immediately to enable State institutions to function. Third, a group of legal experts will be created to analyze the situation and determine how the election process will work, that is, they will provide proposals on a second run-off vote, if you like, which means a third round of voting — something that does not exist under our legal system — or a whole new election. But this depends on the Supreme Court decision, which we are eagerly awaiting. Fourth, initiatives will be taken to amend the Presidential Elections Act, form a new government and bring in political and constitutional reforms. Fifth, all political forces will be called on to preserve my country's territorial integrity. Finally, the round table will convene again after the Supreme Court's ruling has been handed down.
The same mediators were present at today's round table. I want to express the firm conviction that this is the only way at this point of resolving this crisis, with a minimum of loss on all sides. I was thinking about questions that might be raised with respect to Canada's role and its influence on events in Ukraine before, during and after the election, and I would like to take this opportunity first to thank the Ukrainian community in Canada for their support and their ongoing interest in the country of their heritage.
I would also like to thank the Government of Canada, which has done a great deal, through the work of its Foreign Affairs Department, to focus our attention and that of the international community on the events in Ukraine. My colleague, Andrew Robinson, who is Canada's ambassador to Ukraine, coordinated the monitoring group of western ambassadors in Kiev. I would particularly like to thank the large delegation of Canadian observers who helped to bring to our attention what happened throughout the country during the election procedure.
I would like to see your interest in the very complicated process in Ukraine maintained and relations between our two States return to the status of a special partnership, which is a principle that our two countries accepted enthusiastically exactly 10 years ago.
Thank you once again, honourable senators, for this invitation to speak before you, which I feel is yet another example of Canada' sincere interest in my people and my country.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I thank His Excellency for taking the time to appear before the committee this evening, especially given that his country is in a crisis and the ambassador must represent all citizens.
Canada is interested in the events that are taking place in Ukraine. Coming from a Ukrainian community, I have special ties to that country, as well as relatives and history that make that relationship unique and special. Canadians from all walks of life understand the need for an independent and a democratic Ukraine. At another time, one might argue whether Canada acted sufficiently and strongly over the last 11 years, but that is for another debate.
I am concerned with the fact that it be the will of the people of Ukraine that ultimately succeeds. The international community — the OSCE, NATO, the European Union and the Canadian and U.S. governments — have universally stated that this election did not meet international standards and, therefore, the election results cannot stand. That is the point from which we cannot veer.
The points that you are talking about are important. There must be a peaceful solution that leaves Ukraine intact. Most, if not all, Canadians support that goal. It has certainly been an all-party position.
You have given us the results of the latest round table discussions and you have put out five points. I would be interested in knowing whether Russia's representative was at the table and agreed to those points; second, whether the two candidates, Mr. Yushchenko and Mr. Yanukovych, were represented personally at the table and agreed to these steps?
You said that the court's decisions are limited. My understanding was that the court, if it had good evidence and were allowed to act independently — I underscore that all parties are allowing the court to exercise its independence without interference — could call for alternatives if it determined that the election was undemocratic and did not meet the standards that one expected in an election. You seem to be saying that there were limited results. I have heard that there are certainly a finite number of possibilities that the court could state, under the Constitution.
[Translation]
Mr. Maimeskul: From the beginning, the first round table was chaired by Ukraine's president. The Speaker of the Douma, Mr. Gryzlov, attended the second round table. According to the media, he arrived a bit late, but he was there for the last part of the round table.
In any case, I have not heard of any challenge in that regard. When the President of Ukraine read the final text, he said that he had reached an agreement with all parties and all the round table participants. That means that Mr. Yushchenko and Mr. Yanukovych committed themselves. Something that I find very important and that hopefully constitutes a step toward a solution is that they shook hands at the end.
With respect to the Supreme Court, I would simply point out that we are somewhat limited in our solutions. The country is in a unique situation, which is developing in such a way that we will need political and legal solutions to get out of this crisis. I agree with you concerning the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. We are eagerly awaiting the ruling, as I said. There are a number of options that the Supreme Court could choose. First of all, if the court concludes, after examining the complaints of massive irregularities and violations, that Mr. Yushchenko received more votes than Mr. Yanukovych, then Mr. Yushchenko could be proclaimed President of Ukraine.
The second option: if the Supreme Court decides that the number of cases of fraud — generally, without listing them; the Canadian observers, especially, gathered much evidence of this — prevented voters from exercising their inherent right to elect the head of state, the elections could be declared invalid. This is the Supreme Court mandate, in spite all the rumours, and all the explanations by various experts.
In that case, the country will be facing new elections. I think that we should stress this point. If the current president, the outgoing president and Parliament do not amend or change the current legislation so as to allow a second or third round, there can be no second or third round. Personally, I support this. This is my answer.
Senator Prud'homme: I think that my colleague's questions were very precise, as well your answers. I will not take up the committee's time, but let me tell you that I was an observer in 1994, during the first and second rounds, and I addressed the Ukrainian Parliament at the time. I could only conclude that Canada certainly has a role to play as a friend, given the nature of our country. I am a French-Canadian nationalist from Quebec. I am proud of it, but I did say French-Canadian.
Thus, I have some understandings of these majority and minority issues. And I do hope that, given the situation, ``foreigners'' do not take advantage of what is happening in Ukraine. For instance, a majority could win over a minority, or a minority might feel pushed around by a majority. Then, if our committee can be of some use, I think that we could offer our services and find all the needed elements. In Canada, we could easily find people with a lot of experience, and who are not embarrassed to identify themselves as Canadians as well as French-Canadian nationalists, as this helps me to better understand the Ukrainian situation. Canada has a Ukrainian community. I really would not want it to gradually fade away. I have always wanted to increase Ukrainian immigration to Canada, to invigorate our waning Ukrainian communities. And this is most unfortunate. I would like you to help us to understand the role that Canada could play due to its nature and its strange resemblance to what might happen.
Mr. Maimeskul: Naturally, I can answer right away. All your expertise and a council of legal experts would be most welcome, naturally. This is the Ukrainian ambassador's immediate answer.
I tried to anticipate some questions of this nature, and this is why I thank all the Canadian participants for taking a closer look at what is happening in Ukraine, but let me make this brief comment.
First, I think that not only Canada, but the international community in general, should endeavour to create a favourable external atmosphere around Ukraine to allow for the free expression of the Ukrainian people's choice. This is my first point.
The second point: I think that we are heading either toward a new round, which means a third round, or toward new elections. And then, we will absolutely need Canadian observers, friendly observers, as you said so well, as well as counselling and other concrete help, when the time comes. And the time is near.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I am watching the clock very closely, but I would remind the members of the committee, and senators who were not members at the time, that some time ago this committee did an in-depth study of Russia and Ukraine. Some of us, therefore, are quite familiar with Ukraine, Russia and some of these problems. I thought I would make that clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Maimeskul: Thanks to your invitation, as you know, I was just appointed Ukrainian ambassador to Canada, and I had an opportunity to take a close, in-depth look at the report on Ukraine. And let me tell you that the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee report contains recommendations and articles that are very relevant to the present and to the future.
[English]
Senator Poy: Thank you for being here, Mr. Ambassador. You mentioned the possibility of a third round of voting, or a brand new presidential election. I would like to know the difference between the two.
Do you have an interim government currently? Who is the head of that government, the former president?
How effective do you think the Supreme Court ruling will be? Would the two sides accept the Supreme Court ruling?
[Translation]
Mr. Maimeskul: Thank you. Difference is of course a figure of speech, because the current Ukrainian legislation does not provide for a third ballot; there is a political option, but that has to be supported by an amendment. That is for sure.
So, for the third ballot or the second second ballot, the difference is that it could take place quite quickly, in two or three weeks. As for a new election, the presidential election legislation sets out the procedure; it takes three months, the legislative preparation of the procedure, restarting the procedure, and it is the last Sunday of the third month. So, naturally, that would be drawn out. And there is another formal matter, I do not believe it will be the case, but there is a formal aspect. Candidates who did not win will not be participating in a new election. But the unique circumstances of the current situation in Ukraine are being taken into account.
With respect to your question about the government's fate, the Parliament has taken a position. It is fully entitled to take that position. It is both a political position and a legal position. And now it is up to the president, under the Constitution, to respond to Parliament's decision. There are a few other details, but that is the situation in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: I join with my colleagues in recognizing that these are difficult days for your country. We particularly appreciate your presence here today and understand the sensitivity of your position.
Let me commend your country on the manner in which it has embraced wide diversity, which was publicly recognized by the EU. I would hope that that would be a continuing consideration in these discussions. We are also quite familiar with that in Canada.
I have two quick questions. How do you think that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine resolution will impact on the decisions that are coming forth in, hopefully, the near future?
My second question deals with the roles that Russia and the U.S. have been playing. In other words, were they invited, or did they invite themselves? Third, do you feel that the effect of their attention is positive, and that their contribution will not impact on the independence of the process?
[Translation]
Mr. Maimeskul: The second question, which you called ``quick,'' is not quick at all. The resolution, or rather the two resolutions — the text with the translation we did Sunday, which you have, the English text — that was the political resolution. The second resolution, passing a motion of non-confidence in the government, is both political and legal. So I am sure that those decisions will influence the course of events in our country. In a way, they will encourage parties and opponents not at the bargaining table to pay attention before making any decisions.
Separatism is not a genuine problem in Ukraine. For decades and even centuries, all regions of Ukraine have wanted to be together. Suddenly, and we know why, there is talk of separatism. It is not the regions, but the governors and their assistants; some of them have started playing around with words. So I am sure that the decisions of Parliament will have a positive influence.
As for Russia, you will have noticed that I did not refer to the State. You know, among neighbors, each country looks out for its own interests, and tries to have some influence to protect those interests. But do not forget that Ukraine is moving toward democracy. It is not a sophisticated or perfect democracy, but it is moving that way. Naturally, democratic Ukraine, in seeking to further its own interests, would like to have an influence through civilized bilateral relations between both countries, just not any neighbouring country, including Russia. They would like to have an influence through bilateral agreements between both countries. That is why I did not refer to the Russian State. But I did refer to the actions and instigations of certain Russian politicians.
That is why the Foreign Affairs Department warned the so-called defenders of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. The truth is that in Ukraine, they do not need defending.
[English]
Senator Smith: Your Excellency, I know you are grappling with a delicate situation, and I commend the Ukrainian people for the lack of any bloodshed so far.
I was in your country for a week, three weeks ago, and it was one of the most moving and exciting experiences of my life. That was not my first visit there. I have a long interest in the Ukraine, too. My first trip was in the late 1960s, and I must say that there is quite a difference between then and now.
In our recent trip, we were all over the country, and we had sometimes as many as ten meetings a day. In addition to that, we talked to dozens of taxicab drivers, waiters and waitresses in order to hear from the people at the grassroots. There was a sense of excitement and hope in their eyes, particularly among the young people. From the older people, you could sense a little more fear that perhaps the geography would shift a bit.
I am familiar with the east-west patterns and all of that. More than anything, the theme that we heard — once people had reached a comfort level with telling us the truth — was that it was not just real democracy that was the issue but an end to the degree of corruption there. I could tell you a lot of stories that would curl people's hair. You have heard some of them. I will not get into them.
However, most of the people we talked to really wanted to see the will of the people accurately counted. In fact, I do not think I met anyone who thought that the first round had been a bona fide result, including people at the election commission. They would sit there and listen to us. We met several governors, numerous officials and campaign people from each side. I want to tell you that I took part in many meetings, and I do not want to indicate where this happened, but on several occasions we would be asked to meet someone somewhere later, and they would say, ``Okay, let me tell you the truth. You heard the party line; now let me tell you the truth.''
There is a pattern of intimidation and systematic fraud, particularly in the eastern regions, that is reflected in such things as the so-called 97 per cent turnout. At one particular technical college, I remember there were 1896 votes on the first round, with 21 candidates, and every single vote was for Yanukovych. Does anyone believe that that really happened? We heard about affidavits from students who had been expelled because they wore an orange ribbon and things like that.
I know that in the eastern area there is a different mentality to this sort of thing, and I understand and appreciate that. The point that I am trying to make, and I would appreciate a response, is that I do not know how Ukraine can have a validity in terms of its next government without going through another election. I appreciate the constitutional constraints of both the non-confidence motion, which Parliament finally did adopt, and also the constitutional constraints of what jurisdiction the Supreme Court has. I appreciate that, but where there is a will, there is a way. That phrase can be used both positively and negatively. I think, from a negative perspective, the incumbent government had the will to make sure they won, and they did, and virtually no one I met believed it.
A comfort level could be achieved by having many more observers, such as Ukrainian-Canadians. I met so many over there, and they were very well received and more positive than our friends to the south. You know that. In the event that that is the route you go, I know that a number of us would move heaven and earth, to the extent that Canada can help, and particularly the Ukrainian community here, to help give credibility. Can it happen?
[Translation]
Mr. Maimeskul: You were very sincere and very emotional describing those few days of your stay in Ukraine, in the beautiful city of Mykolaïv, in southern Ukraine, which was closed off to the world until Ukraine gained its independence.
I can give you a number of other examples, as a Ukrainian citizen, of violations and irregularities. I am not going to do that, because I see that we are running out of time. The only thing I would like to say to you is that all those cases of irregularity, falsification and violation are examined by the Supreme Court. There are cases of not only 97 per cent turnout, but 100 per cent and over 100 per cent. That's unthinkable, but according to observers, there are cases of just that.
With respect to a new election, it appears to me that you read the resolution of Parliament carefully. And I was precise about it too. A new election is historically the hardest thing for a nation, for a people. It's a change in mentality. We need a bit more time for that.
To make it easier for voters to exercise their free choice, they need help. That is why the Parliament, following the Supreme Court decision, absolutely must make changes to the presidential election legislation, to exclude voting by certificate of absence, voting on the spot and things like that, and all of that needs to be done at the same time.
In terms of confidence or non-confidence in the government, it seems to me that the decision was made today. Naturally, I am going to look for more information to analyze the situation at the embassy. But it seems to me that the Parliament has made its decision. The president has to think it over now, but the solution is coalition government — consultation with all of the political forces in Parliament — so that the new government is not temporary. But I am going to tell you frankly: the situation requires further analysis.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, one hour has now elapsed. I will include myself in my own rule and not ask a question.
Gentlemen, I wish to thank you on behalf of the committee for an excellent presentation. I know that I speak for everyone when I say that we haved learned a great deal today.
The committee adjourned.