October 2, 2002
Canadian International Development Agency
Central and Eastern European Branch
Policy and Planning (RZPA)
200 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec K1A 0G4
On behalf of the national Ukrainian Canadian Business and Professional Federation, we are pleased to provide you the attached Brief and join the deliberations that will take CIDA’s Central and Eastern Europe Program on Ukraine forward to 2010.
We view the outcome of these consultations as extremely important to ensure the continued implementation of programs and activities initiated by Canada following Ukraine’s independence in 1991.
After centuries within the Russian Empire and 70 years of Soviet control that destroyed its basic political and social structures, Ukraine has made great steps towards establishing democracy, moving to economic reforms and a free market, and providing a zone of peace and security for the West. As you have rightly concluded, Ukraine still requires support for building up its governance structures and institutional capacity, as well as strengthening its civil society. Its current strategic challenges -- entry into WTO, EU and NATO -- remain as ones that need strong and sustained partnership with Canada, in keeping with our foreign policy objectives.
Our chapters and members across Canada have expressed their great interest in the outcome of these consultations, and we are pleased to intervene on their behalf. We welcome this opportunity to input into CIDA’s proposed strategy and have responded to the key questions in your Consultation Paper.
Yours Sincerely
Borys Gengalo
President
Orest Dubas
Chair, Ukraine-Canada Committee
Hon. Susan Whelan, Minister for International Cooperation
INTRODUCTION
As the Ottawa Branch of the national Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Federation, we are pleased to present the following views on behalf of the Federation and our members in response to the consultation document ‘Charting a Course to 2010’.
First of all, we believe that the CIDA strategy for Ukraine is well considered and in keeping with CIDA’s goals and with Canada’s foreign policy objectives for Ukraine. With the graduation of the eight partner countries as a result of their entry into the NATO and European structures, we support the shift in priorities to Ukraine and Russia.
With specific reference to CIDA's initiatives in Ukraine, we are pleased that your Department foresees no reduction to the program budget during this decade.We too believe that there is no quick fix for Ukraine and that reform in Ukraine is a long-term endeavor.We agree that the programming framework for 2002-2010 should be cohesive and reinforced:Canadian projects should be targeted and focused; they should work to build synergies with other donors. Such a framework will indeed strengthen the effectiveness of Canada's assistance program.
As you have rightly concluded, Ukraine still requires support for building up its governance structures and institutional capacity, in particular strengthening civil society as a basis for open, democratic government. Its current strategic challenges -- entry into WTO, EU and NATO -- remain as ones that need strong and sustained partnership with Canada, in keeping with our foreign policy objectives.
With respect to the overall CIDA course being charted, our Association and our members -- as Canadians and taxpayers -- would like to address the major requirements and the specific concerns for the paths being taken:
We want to ensure that our aid programs meet and support broader Canadian foreign policy needs; and
That the aid and cooperation programs make best use of dollars spent by having good prospects for success.
We believe that the CIDA CEE programs have been successful to date because of careful analysis and the careful selection of partners at the international and local levels. We agree with the lessons learnt through experience, consider them valuable ones and feel they should be applied with some rigour to future planning. We applaud the effort to assist graduating countries to, in turn, become aid donors themselves.
THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
The desire to use funds redirected from the graduating countries to the Central Asian Republics stems from a number of sources:
Needs in the area;
Pressure from allies, in particular the US, to get involved; and
The wish to provide indirect support to Canadian businesses, mainly resource extraction, working in the area.
It is impossible to quarrel with the expression of need in this area. We do, however, question the possibility of success at any other than the most elemental levels. Currently, governments in Central Asia are for the most part non-democratic. Indeed, they are autocratic and antidemocratic, with signs of developing cults of personality of the Stalinist variety. The major international actor here for at least the mid-term future will be the United States. Currently, American interests lie in maintaining stability so as to ensure safe bases for their troops deploying to Afghanistan, preparing for action in Iraq and potential future action against Iran. As well, they are concerned with halting the spread of religious-based terrorist organizations. To achieve these aims, the Americans are supporting the current regimes so long as they can guarantee they will meet US requirements. The potential for building civil society as a base for democracy and fully-functioning market economies in Central Asia must be rated as low. Canadian aid, unless we can somehow differentiate it from US goals and projects, will be seen by recipients as simply a prop for corrupt regimes in US service.
THE STATES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Canadian aid in this area results from both our obligations to our allies and from wider foreign policy goals. Precipitate withdrawal will do damage to our standing with those allies and thus our ability to achieve other foreign policy and trade goals. It should be realized, however, that long-term success is predicated on one major factor. This is the willingness of the EU to open itself to increased trade with this region. Without this trade the economic basis for social, and therefore political and military, stability will not exist. The region will simply slide back into anarchy. We must make clear to our European allies that our continued assistance is based on this requirement.
We do support the proposed programming approach in the Balkans, as laid out in the consultation document. (i.e. investing Canadian assistance to continue our support for peace-building as well as supporting longer term institutional development).
WHERE TO SPEND I: TRANS-REGIONAL PROJECTS
We believe that funds becoming available from the graduation of states from CIDA programs be spent in two areas. The first of these would be two trans-regional projects. We suggest two related ones:
The fight against the spread of AIDS, which is a problem that crosses borders and affects the whole region;
The struggle against the trade in human beings, which cannot be effectively dealt with by one state.
These activities would have a number of advantages:
As with the Balkan SEETEC, such large sectoral programs would provide economies of scale that achieve a critical mass in terms of policy influence; and
WHERE TO SPEND II: UKRAINE
As funding shifts to Eastern Europe/Central Asia, Ukraine must be a policy priority. There is a cogent reason for this. To understand, we should first look at developments in the rest of the region. We have already mentioned the potential (or lack thereof) for democratic development in Central Asia. Belarus is sinking into a black hole of its own making that external assistance can do little to prevent. While on the surface Russian reforms seem positive, it is our contention that they contain the seeds of their own destruction. The changes in Russia are a peculiar type of top-down reform that reproduces a pattern set by Ivan the Terrible, emulated by Peter the Great, Stolypin and even the Soviet regime. Lacking a solid footing in democratic institutions and firm support from well-developed civic society, they inevitably spiral down into ever-greater repression and violence, culminating in war as an outlet for internal tensions and as an excuse for even greater repression. One can see preliminary signs of this:
Given Russia’s size, nuclear potential and location, some engagement is necessary. The question is how much. We see increased Canadian assistance, given its limited size, as having little effect.
Ukraine is the only country in which oligarchs and autocrats have not been able to seize complete authority. Very recent events have demonstrated that their power is limited by the presence of a growing civil society sector and organized popular support for accelerated reform. We would be optimistic in the extreme to see their victory as a certainty. However, these forces represent the best chance for democracy in the region. Even if they do eventually win, the victory will be a tenuous one unless the various elements of civil society can be strengthened to a much greater degree through assistance for self-managed growth. In terms of CIDA’s investment, Ukraine presents the best chance for a positive return in the region. Moreover, Ukraine is still of a size where limited increases in Canadian assistance can have an affect. As well, this aid will dovetail with that of our allies and international NGOs, not running up against differing foreign policy objectives, as in the case of Central Asia.
The return is not only limited to the boundaries of Ukraine. A stable, democratic Ukraine with a thriving market economy is large enough to have a positive effect on the whole region. Ukraine has established a National Commission for Sustainable Development under the Cabinet of Ministers, and Parliament has ratified a number of international environmental treaties. These steps, along with a pro-active approach by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, have put Ukraine on the road towards global and European integration. It is essential that Ukraine be supported in implementing these initiatives, including its announced strategy for entry into WTO, EU and NATO. Given its location, such an integrated Ukraine would go a long way to preventing the development of new Cold War: this time with the boundaries shifted to the limits of Central Europe.
Borys Gengalo
President
Orest Dubas
Chair, Ukraine-Canada Committee