U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–187PDF 2005

UKRAINE’S ELECTION: NEXT STEPS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DECEMBER 7, 2004

Serial No. 108–161

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

VACANCY 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

DOUG SEAY, Professional Staff Member 

VINCE MORELLI, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Europe 

MARILYN C. OWEN, Senior Staff Associate 

BEVERLY HALLOCK, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana, 

and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate ........................ 6

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio and Chair, Congressional Ukrainian Caucus ....................................... 12

The Honorable John F. Tefft, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ..................................... 23

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar: Prepared statement ....................................... 9

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur: Prepared statement ............................................. 20

The Honorable John F. Tefft: Prepared statement ............................................... 27

APPENDIX 

The Honorable James A. Leach, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa: Prepared statement ............................................................................... 47

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement ...................................................... 48

The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 49

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey and Vice Chairman, Committee on International 

Relations: Prepared statement ............................................................................ 50

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 51

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 52

Michael Sawkiw, Jr., President, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America: 

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 53

Responses from the Honorable John F. Tefft to questions submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Dan Burton ................................................................. 57

(1)

UKRAINE’S ELECTION: NEXT STEPS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. Although far 

away and unfamiliar to most Americans, Ukraine is presently a 

host to a dramatic struggle between the past and the future, between liberty and oppression. It is a struggle for the future of one 

of the largest countries in Europe, one which has been reborn after 

centuries of oppression, including the deliberate engineering by the 

Soviet regime of an artificial famine in the 1930s that killed more 

than 5 million people in an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation once and for all. 

This contest is being played out in the ongoing election for the 

next President of Ukraine. But the stakes extend far beyond 

Ukraine itself and embrace the security of the European continent 

and, by extension, that of the United States. 

Since before recorded history, Europe has suffered repeated invasions from the East. Over the past three centuries, first the Russian and then the Soviet Empire subjugated much of Europe and 

imposed a waiting, permanent threat to the rest. By 1945, Soviet 

armies were massed in the heart of the continent, having overrun 

Central and Eastern Europe and poised to conquer the rest. It was 

this overwhelming threat that necessitated the historic guarantee 

of Europe’s security by the United States and brought about the 

formation of NATO. 

With the collapse of the Soviet Empire, its menace disappeared 

as well. But we have too quickly and mistakenly become used to 

the idea of permanent peace. There is no guarantee that a similar 

threat from the still unsettled East can never be reconstituted, no 

guarantee, that is, except for an independent Ukraine. 

Without Ukraine’s 50 million people and extensive resources, and 

denied access to a strategically situated territory larger than that 

of France, no would-be imperial power could easily assemble a 

threat to Europe. An independent Ukraine, allied to the West, 

then, is the key to security in the East. 

Freed from the Soviet Empire for only 13 years and ruled by 

remnants of that regime, Ukraine is being pulled in opposite directions, toward integration with the West or toward a closer relationship with and increasing dependence on Russia. The former would 

2

secure Ukraine’s independence. The latter is a road leading perhaps to a progressive loss of autonomy and potential subjugation 

by some new overlord. 

These two new positions are given form by the two candidates for 

President. As the world is aware, the election was so compromised 

by open fraud that Ukraine’s population took to the streets determined to preserve their new-found liberties and to prevent the installation of an illegitimate regime. Given that resistance, and near 

universal condemnation by the international community, the once 

all-powerful Government has been forced to admit that the election 

it presided over was fraudulent and to agree to a new runoff now 

scheduled for December 26th. 

I focus on the need for an independent Ukraine, but also stress 

the importance of democracy. Why is the latter important? Because 

if Ukraine’s independence is to be made secure, it must be fully integrated into and protected by the West and its institutions. I don’t 

know what the European Union may do toward this end, but I believe that Ukraine’s independence can only be guaranteed by its becoming a full member of NATO. It can become a member of NATO 

only if it has become a true democracy. Full membership may not 

be possible in the immediate future, but many of its benefits can 

be harvested by making our commitment clear now. 

Given that Russia is usually cited as the principal threat to 

Ukraine, it may surprise many to hear that among the greatest 

beneficiaries of a guarantee of Ukraine’s independence would be 

the Russian people. For centuries, the greatest enemy of those promoting democracy and freedom in Russia has come from its leaders’ pursuit of empire, a goal that required autocratic rule and a 

massive military establishment to accomplish. Without the prospect of dominating Ukraine, the Russian people will at last be liberated from their leader’s vision of an empire in Europe, one that 

has been instrumental in justifying their long centuries of oppression. 

On June 6, 1944, American and allied forces landed on the 

beaches of Normandy to begin the liberation of Europe. It did not 

end in 1945. We have steadily advanced in that mission for over 

half a century, first freeing and transforming Western Europe and 

then embracing the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. With 

Ukraine’s democratization and its integration into NATO, we will 

have achieved the last great peace remaining in our effort to liberate and secure Europe that began on those beaches so long ago. 

I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. 

Lantos, for such remarks as he chooses to make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first commend you on a serious and thoughtful opening 

statement, with which I would like to identify myself, and commend you for taking full advantage of the little time remaining in 

the 108th Congress to hold this important and very timely hearing. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, let me preface my remarks by welcoming our distinguished witnesses today. My friend, Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 

served as President Bush’s personal representative at the UkrainVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
3

ian elections and saw firsthand the egregious violations and falsifications that took place. 

Parenthetically, I would like to congratulate Senator Lugar on 

receiving last night the W. Averell Harriman Award from the National Democratic Institute, which recognized both Senator Lugar 

and my good friend, Senator Joe Biden, for their efforts to forge a 

strong bipartisan consensus in the Senate on the promotion of democracy worldwide. We salute you, Senator Lugar. 

My dear friend, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who will speak 

shortly, is the Co-Chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus 

and an internationally recognized leader on human rights and democracy, and we are delighted to have Congresswoman Kaptur 

with us. 

I also welcome Deputy Assistant Secretary John Tefft, who has 

a long and distinguished career in the region, and I look forward 

to hearing more from him. 

Mr. Chairman, the situation in the Ukraine today is both volatile 

and complex. It is far from a case of the good guys versus the bad 

guys, or East versus West, as a reading of most of the media would 

suggest. I would like to focus attention on two significant aspects 

of Ukraine today that deserve much deeper and more sophisticated 

consideration. 

First, it is important to realize that Russia is trying to reestablish the hold it enjoyed over its immediate neighbors under the Soviet Empire. Moscow wants to export its authoritarian society to all 

of the independent Republics, including Moldova and Georgia. 

Belarus is already a Russian satellite, and this power grid must be 

recognized in the context of the recent Presidential elections in 

Ukraine. Ever the eager overlord to his former colonies, Mr. Putin 

offered his congratulations to Prime Minister Yanukovych even before the Ukraine Election Commission issued its phony ruling. 

Although there are exceptions among an enlightened few, Russia’s leadership is a tiger that does not change its stripes. This was 

most vividly illustrated to me during a congressional visit in the 

early days of the post-Soviet Russian Federation when my colleagues and I met with President Yeltsin’s then-Vice President, Alexander Rutskoi. On the wall of Vice President Rutskoi’s impressive office there hung a giant map of the Soviet Union, a country 

which did not exist anymore. This made me curious, as it would 

never occur to me or to my friend Arnold Schwarzenegger to hang 

a map of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in our respective offices. 

When I asked Rutskoi why he continued to display the map, given 

that the country it depicted was gone, he replied that it is a map 

of the past, but it could possibly be the map of the future. 

This attitude is exactly what we are witnessing today. Through 

all available means, Mr. Putin and a small junta of former KGB 

officials are reversing the democratic achievements of the past decade, not only in Russia but in Russia’s neighbors. Putin is eager 

to export his authoritarian form of government to the entire region. 

It is distressing that the United States and Europe have done so 

little to counter this most dangerous of Russian exports. In fact, 

Russian neoimperialism appeared unstoppable until just 2 weeks 

ago, when the courageous Ukrainian people turned out by the hunVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

dreds of thousands in subzero temperatures to protest the stolen 

Presidential elections, and I salute them. 

There is a second underlying factor to the situation in Ukraine 

that I wish to address today, which in all this controversy has basically remained unspoken of. I am troubled by the misleading exuberant portrayal in the Western media of Viktor Yushchenko as a 

pro-Western hero with Western liberal values. Both Yushchenko 

and Yanukovych are products of the Soviet system, and it remains 

to be seen whether Yushchenko will live up to the high expectations we in the West, myself included, have for his candidacy. I am 

also pleased with his noncorrupt political record and his willingness to take on some of the oligarchs and his efforts to pass long 

overdue economic reforms. But I remain deeply distressed by instances of anti-Semitism among some of his supporters and his reluctance to condemn the resurgence of historic Ukrainian anti-Semitism in the press and in the public arena. 

Not long ago, an article in a widely read opposition newspaper 

suggested that the Ukrainian Jews marched alongside Hitler’s 

troops when they invaded Ukraine, a ludicrous and vicious lie. 

Some Ukrainian officials immediately called for the paper to be 

closed. But Yushchenko waivered because he was unwilling to silence the voice of one of his supporters. 

We all know that Ukraine has a horrible past in this respect, colored with the bloodshed of Cossack pogroms. But during the last 

decade relations between Ukrainian Jewish citizens and the State 

have improved tremendously, and there has been a renaissance of 

Jewish life in the Ukraine. Political leaders on all sides must be 

vigilant on this issue and not let any anti-Semitic events go unchallenged in a new Ukraine. 

Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns about some political forces in 

the Ukraine today, the central goal of United States policy toward 

Ukraine must be to encourage its integration into Europe through 

the promotion of democracy, transparency, sound economic policies, 

and human rights. 

Mr. Chairman, in that context it is obvious that the election in 

Ukraine last month was neither free nor fair. Our Government has 

said so. Our esteemed colleague Senator Lugar said so. The OSCE 

said so, and so did the European Union. 

As a matter of fact, on the first day I was called by the BBC for 

my opinion on what is happening in the Ukraine, I strongly condemned the actions of the Ukrainian Government. When the interviewer asked well, how do you know? I said I know because my 

friend Dick Lugar said so, and that is all I needed. 

I was particularly pleased to see the EU and the United States 

working closely together to resolve this crisis, and I want to especially commend the positive role of the President of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, for his participation in resolving this issue. 

I believe that Ukraine’s ability to conduct free and fair elections 

on December 26th will have lasting effects, not only on the future 

of Ukraine, but also on Ukraine’s immediate neighbors, Georgia, 

Belarus and Moldova, and on the autocratic regimes in Central 

Asia that are slated to hold elections next year. In just 2 weeks, 

the peaceful and powerful democratic protests in the Ukraine 

spurred the Ukrainian Parliament to fulfill its obligations as a legVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
5

islature in a democracy and to dismiss the current Government. 

The protest sparked the rebellion among many of Ukraine’s reporters and TV anchors, who refused to be a voice for Governmentsanctioned news. The judiciary in Ukraine has also found its independent mission. We can only hope that the citizens of Russia and 

other former Soviet Republics will act similarly in the months and 

years ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, the world held its breath in late November, as 

Ukrainians took to the streets. For those who favor freedom it has 

been a suspenseful and hopeful scene, reminiscent of the protests 

that swept away the Berlin Wall and burst the dam holding back 

democracy in Central Europe. As we gazed at the televised images 

of the banners and the vast crowd sporting orange scarves, we 

couldn’t help but wonder whether they will have a similar effect, 

bringing change, not just to Ukraine, but starting a new passion 

for freedom throughout the entire region. 

But as we consider today the way forward for Ukraine, we must 

remain vigilant so that the ugly remnants of the Ukrainian and Soviet past do not overwhelm what may be a promising future of democracy in the eastern part of Europe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. Leach, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. LEACH. I do, but I will put it in the record, with your permission. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LEACH. I would also like to simply express my appreciation 

that Senator Lugar has graced us with his presence. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. LEACH. But I am very doubtful he can trump the wisdom of 

the first two speakers. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. I don’t have a statement presently. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

It gives me pleasure to welcome our first witness today, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Honorable Richard Lugar. Following the first round of 

voting for a new President of Ukraine on October 31st, and concerned by numerous first-hand reports of fraud, President Bush 

asked Senator Lugar to go to Kiev and underscore to President 

Kuchma and his Government the great importance that the United 

States placed on a free and fair election. 

Unfortunately, the November 21st runoff between the top two 

contenders was marked by even more extensive and blatant violations aimed at ensuring that the Government’s candidate won. Senator Lugar’s public statements highlighting the massive fraud were 

instrumental in focusing international attention on the problem. 

After several days of standoff and maneuvering, it now appears 

that a tentative deal has been struck between the opposing sides, 

and that a new vote will be held on December 26th. However, several steps remain before a vote can take place. 

Today’s hearing is intended to examine the many problems associated with the voting on November 21st and on how Ukraine can 

prevent these from recurring on December 26th, to assess the role 

6

of Russia and the West throughout the election and post-election 

period, and to discuss the direction of United States policy with 

Ukraine. 

Senator Lugar. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, U.S. SENATE 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Is my 

microphone on? 

Thank you very much. I am honored to be with you today. I simply want to take this moment to thank you and Mr. Lantos for your 

leadership during this Congress. I know I speak for Senator Biden 

as well as for myself in indicating what a privilege it has been to 

work with this Committee and with the able staffs on both sides 

of the aisle. I think we have made headway on many pursuits, and 

we look forward to another good Congress of working together. 

Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of being President Bush’s personal representative for the November 21st Presidential runoff 

election in Ukraine. As I approached the responsibility, I noted 

publicly that I was not an advocate of either candidate in the election. My focus was to stress free and fair election procedures that 

would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. The campaign for the President of Ukraine had already been marked by widespread political intimidation and failure 

to give equal coverage to candidates in the media. Physical intimidation of voters and illegal use of administrative and governmental 

authorities had been evident and persistent. 

President Bush wrote in a letter, which I carried to President 

Kuchma, and I quote the President:

‘‘You play a central role in ensuring that Ukraine’s election is 

democratic and free of fraud and manipulation. A tarnished 

election, however, will lead us to review our relations with 

Ukraine.’’

This is from the letter that I gave to President Kuchma. 

In thoughtful and careful representation of President Bush’s 

words, I visited with President Kuchma and with both candidates 

with explicit requests for them to terminate any further campaign 

violations, and I stated I had come to celebrate the building of 

strong, democratic institutions in Ukraine. 

Unfortunately, a nationwide celebration of a democratic election 

procedure at that point was not to be. The Government of President Kuchma allowed or aided and abetted wholesale fraud and 

abuse that changed the results of the election. It is clear that 

Prime Minister Yanukovych did not win the election despite enormous—or rather erroneous—election announcements and even calls 

of congratulation from Moscow. 

In 1986, I witnessed a democratic and diplomatic challenge in 

the Philippines. There, too, I served as Co-Chairman with Congressman Jack Murtha of an observer group appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The parallels between the Philippine experience of 1986 and Ukraine today are interesting. 

7

President Marcos of the Philippines called a snap election and 

Corazon Aquino, the widow of an assassinated opposition leader, 

challenged Marcos. While Marcos attempted to steal the election 

through fraud and abuse, the overwhelming support for Aquino led 

the Government to falsify the vote count. Tens of thousands of Filipinos poured into the streets of Manila in support of Aquino. The 

international community was shocked by the enormity of the fraud 

and the popular EDSA revolution. Ultimately, the will of the people 

brought change, and President Marcos’ efforts to subvert freedoms 

failed. 

President Bush has expressed his unequivocal support for democracy around the world. He has said, and I quote the President:

‘‘I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It is just not a part 

of my thinking.’’

I agree with the President. The United States must be at the 

forefront of international efforts to secure individual freedom. Democracy must be at the core of our foreign policy. We must be prepared to play an active role in ensuring that democracy and basic 

freedoms are promoted and preserved around the world. 

An election on December 26th that is free and fair will be a tribute to Ukraine’s maturing democracy and will place Ukraine on a 

path to join the community of European democracies. A secure and 

democratic Ukraine is in the national security interest of the 

United States, NATO, the European Union and Russia. A fraudulent and illegal election would leave Ukraine crippled. The new 

President would lack legitimacy with the Ukrainian people and the 

international community. 

The United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the 

United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, former 

Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, and 

congressional leaders have visited, written and called Ukrainian 

leaders to advocate a free and fair election process. Secretary of 

State Colin Powell’s leadership and the outstanding efforts of our 

Ambassador John Herbst have left no doubt on the impact that an 

illegitimate election will have on the future of Ukraine and our relationship. 

With the stakes so high, I applaud the thousands of election observers who were sent by the United States and European States 

to organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy 

and its affiliates, the Organization for Security and Operation in 

Europe, and the European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations. Most importantly, over 10,000 citizens of Ukraine were organized by the Committee of Voters of Ukraine to carefully observe 

individual polling stations. These observers outlined an extensive 

list of serious procedural violations, including illegal expulsions of 

opposition members of election commissions, inaccurate voter lists, 

evidence of students, Government employees and private-sector 

workers being forced by their deans and supervisors to vote for one 

candidate over another, busloads of people voting more than once 

with absentee ballots, representatives of the media being beaten 

and their equipment stolen or destroyed, and a suspiciously large 

use of mobile voting. 

8

Even in the face of these attempts to end any hope of a free and 

fair election, I was inspired by the willingness and courage of so 

many citizens of Ukraine to demonstrate their passion for free expression and the building of a truly democratic Ukraine. As corrupt 

authorities tried to disrupt, frighten and intimidate citizens, brave 

Ukrainians pushed back by continuing to do their best to keep the 

election on track and to prevent chaos. 

President Kuchma pledged to the Ukraine that there would be, 

and I quote President Kuchma, ‘‘elections worthy of a 21st century 

European country.’’ The day after the runoff election, I told the 

press and the people of Ukraine through a live television broadcast 

in Kiev that President Kuchma had the responsibility and the opportunity, even at that point, to provide an outcome that was fair 

and responsible. I pointed out he would enhance his legacy by 

prompt and decisive action which maximizes worldwide confidence 

in the Presidency of the Ukraine and the extraordinary potential 

future which lies ahead of his country. To date, President Kuchma 

has not met those responsibilities. 

This morning, we have learned from our Embassy in Ukraine 

that an agreement was reached late last night between European 

mediators, President Kuchma and the Presidential candidates. Although not as sweeping as earlier reports of a compromise, the 

agreement reportedly has two elements. The current Central Election Commission will be dismissed and replaced with new members 

to oversee the December 26th runoff. 

Secondly, a new election law has been agreed to by the parties 

in an effort to eliminate the fraud perpetrated in the previous 

rounds of voting. 

These reports are promising, but we will have to await the final 

outcome of the Rada deliberations, future rounds of negotiations, 

and President Kuchma’s signature before offering firm conclusions. 

In the meantime, I offer four recommendations. Absentee and 

mobile voting must be excluded. The presence of Ukrainian and 

international observers must be increased, ideally, to observers at 

each of the 33,006 polling stations. The candidates must have equal 

time to present themselves and broadcast their platforms to the 

Ukrainian people. Finally, the domestic and international press 

must commit to monitor and to debate the electoral process in an 

open and transparent manner that fully illuminates illegal activities and conveys legitimacy to the rightful winner. 

Without vigorous attempts to meet these changes, I do not believe the Ukrainian people will have confidence in the integrity of 

the election process. Worst yet, they may be doomed to witness a 

repeat of the fraud and abuse that were apparent in the previous 

rounds of voting. 

I am pleased to report that the United States Department of 

State has notified Congress of their intent to supplement election 

monitoring and related election assistance to support the December 

26th runoff. This is critical, and I urge the Department to provide 

the funds necessary as quickly as possible to assist the Ukrainian 

people in their goal of a free and fair election. Specifically, funds 

will be used to support election observers, exit polling, parallel voting tabulations, training of election commissioners and voter education programs. 

9

I share the Administration’s strong objections to separatist initiatives and continue to urge all Ukrainians to resolve the situation 

through peaceful means. The future of the country rests with the 

Ukrainian voters, but the United States and Europe must continue 

to support a foundation for democracy, for rule of law, and for a 

market economy which will allow Ukraine to prosper and reach its 

full potential. 

With democratic forces in retreat in neighboring Russia and 

Belarus, a free and fair election will be a turning point in 

Ukraine’s history that could have widespread constructive effects 

beyond its borders and the region. 

I have strong affection for the people of Ukraine and the bravery 

and determination they have shown since the fall of the Soviet 

Union. I have good memories of suggesting an initial pledge of 

$175 million in Nunn-Lugar assistance to dismantle the Ukraine 

nuclear arsenal. 

Parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I would say this is now closer to 

$700 million, but the nuclear weapons are all gone. I carried the 

Ukrainian message to Secretary of State James Baker requesting 

a strong United States diplomatic presence when our representation consisted of a small consular office. The Secretary moved 

quickly to establish an Embassy and to send a U.S. Ambassador to 

Kiev. 

The United States has stood by Ukraine through difficult moments before, and we must not fail to do so at this critical juncture. 

My presence in the Ukraine during this important time was meant 

to underscore President Bush’s support for the future of Ukraine. 

Free and fair elections in Ukraine embody our goal and hope of a 

Europe whole and free. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the Ukraine has dominated newspaper headlines and media broadcasts all over the 

world for the last 16 days. In that time, extraordinary events have 

occurred. A free press has revolted against Government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its 

political footing. A new generation has found its hope for the future. A society has rebelled against the illegal activities of its Government. It is in our interest to recognize and to protect those advances. 

Thank you for this opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

U.S. SENATE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had the honor of being President Bush’s personal representative for the November 21 presidential runoff election in Ukraine. As I approached this responsibility, 

I noted publicly that I was not an advocate of either candidate in the election. My 

focus was to stress free and fair election procedures that would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning candidate. 

The campaign for president in Ukraine had already been marked by widespread 

political intimidation and failure to give equal coverage to candidates in the media. 

Physical intimidation of voters and illegal use of governmental administrative and 

legal authorities had been evident and persistent. 

President Bush wrote in a letter which I carried to President Kuchma: ‘‘You play 

a central role in ensuring that Ukraine’s election is democratic and free of fraud and 

manipulation. A tarnished election, however, will lead us to review our relations 

10

with Ukraine.’’ In thoughtful and careful representation of President Bush’s words, 

I visited with President Kuchma and both candidates, with explicit requests for 

them to terminate any further campaign violations. I stated that I had come to celebrate the building of strong democratic institutions in Ukraine. 

Unfortunately, a nationwide celebration of democratic election procedures at that 

point, was not to be. The government of President Kuchma allowed, or aided and 

abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that changed the results of the election. It is 

clear that Prime Minister Yanukovich did not win this election despite erroneous 

election announcements and calls of congratulations from Moscow. 

In 1986, I witnessed a democratic and diplomatic challenge in The Philippines. 

There too, I served as Co-Chairman, with Congressman Jack Murtha, of an observer 

group appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The parallels between the Philippine 

experience of 1986 and Ukraine today are interesting. President Marcos called a 

snap election and Corazon Aquino, the widow of an assassinated opposition leader, 

challenged Marcos. While Marcos attempted to steal the election through fraud and 

abuse, the overwhelming support for Aquino led the government to falsify the vote 

count. Tens of thousands of Filipinos poured into the streets of Manila in support 

of Aquino. The international community was shocked by the enormity of the fraud 

and the popular EDSA revolution. Ultimately, the will of the people brought change 

and President Marcos’ efforts to subvert freedoms failed. 

DEMOCRACY IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: 

President Bush has expressed his unequivocal support for democracy around the 

world. He has said: ‘‘I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It’s just not part of my thinking.’’ I agree 

with the President. 

The United States must be at the forefront of international efforts to secure individual freedom. Democracy must be at the core of our foreign policy. We must be 

prepared to play an active role in ensuring that democracy and basic freedoms are 

promoted and preserved around the world. 

An election on December 26 that is free and fair will be a tribute to Ukraine’s 

maturing democracy and will place Ukraine on a path to join the community of European democracies. A secure and democratic Ukraine is in the national security interests of the United States, NATO, the European Union, and Russia. A fraudulent 

and illegal election would leave Ukraine crippled. The new president would lack legitimacy with the Ukrainian people and the international community. 

The U.S. Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, the Deputy Secretary of State Rich 

Armitage, former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, and 

Congressional leaders have visited, written and called Ukrainian leaders to advocate 

a free and fair election process. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s leadership and the 

outstanding efforts of our Ambassador, John Herbst, have left no doubt of the impact an illegitimate election will have on the future of Ukraine and our relationship. 

With the stakes so high, I applaud the thousands of election observers who were 

sent by the U.S. and European states through organizations such as the National 

Endowment for Democracy, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations. Most importantly, over 10,000 citizens of Ukraine were organized by the Committee of Voters 

of Ukraine to carefully observe individual polling stations. These observers outlined 

an extensive list of serious procedural violations including:

• Illegal expulsions of opposition members of election commissions;

• Inaccurate voter lists;

• Evidence of students, government employees and private sector workers being 

forced by their deans and supervisors to vote for one candidate over another;

• Busloads of people voting more than once with absentee ballots;

• Representatives of the media being beaten and their equipment stolen or destroyed; and

• Suspiciously large use of mobile voting.

Even in the face of these attempts to end any hope of a free and fair election, 

I was inspired by the willingness and courage of so many citizens of Ukraine to 

demonstrate their passion for free expression and the building of a truly democratic 

Ukraine. As corrupt authorities tried to disrupt, frighten and intimidate citizens, 

brave Ukrainians pushed back by continuing to do their best to keep the election 

on track and to prevent chaos. 

President Kuchma pledged to Ukraine that there would be ‘‘Elections worthy of 

a 21st century European country.’’ The day after the runoff election, I told the press 

11

and the people of Ukraine through a live television broadcast in Kiev that President 

Kuchma had the responsibility and the opportunity to produce even at that point 

an outcome that was fair and responsible. I pointed out that he would enhance his 

legacy by prompt and decisive action which maximizes worldwide confidence in the 

presidency of Ukraine and the extraordinary potential future which lies ahead of his 

country. To date, President Kuchma has not met these responsibilities. 

WHAT TO DO: 

This morning we have learned from our embassy in Ukraine that an agreement 

was reached late last night between European mediators, President Kuchma, and 

the presidential candidates. Although not as sweeping as earlier reports of a compromise, the agreement reportedly has two elements. The current Central Election 

Commission will be dismissed and replaced with new members to oversee the December 26th runoff. Secondly, a new election law has been agreed to by the parties 

in an effort to eliminate the fraud perpetrated in the previous rounds of voting. 

These reports are promising but we will have to await the final outcome of the 

Rada’s deliberations, future rounds of negotiations, and President Kuchma’s signature before offering firm conclusions. In the meantime, I offer four recommendations:

• Absentee and mobile voting must be excluded;

• the presence of Ukrainian and international observers must be increased to, 

ideally, observers in each of the 33,006 polling stations;

• the candidates must have equal time to present themselves and to broadcast 

their platforms to the Ukrainian people; and

• the domestic and international press must commit to monitor and to debate 

the electoral process in an open and transparent manner that fully illuminates illegal activities and conveys legitimacy to the rightful winner.

Absent vigorous attempts to meet these changes, I do not believe that the Ukrainian people will have confidence in the integrity of the election process. Worse yet, 

they may be doomed to witness a repeat of the fraud and abuse that were apparent 

in the previous rounds of voting. 

I am pleased to report that the U.S. Department of State has notified Congress 

of their intent to supplement election monitoring and related assistance to support 

the December 26 runoff. This is critical and I urge the Department to provide the 

funds necessary, as quickly as possible, to assist the Ukrainian people in their goal 

of free and fair elections. Specifically funds will be used to support election observers, exit polling, parallel vote tabulations, training of election commissioners, and 

voter education programs. I share the Administration’s strong objections to separatist initiatives and continue to urge all Ukrainians to resolve the situation 

through peaceful means. The future of the country rests with Ukrainian voters, but 

the United States and Europe must continue to support a foundation for democracy, 

rule of law, and a market economy, which will allow Ukraine to prosper and reach 

its full potential. 

CONCLUSION: 

With democratic forces in retreat in neighboring Russia and Belarus, a free and 

fair election will be a turning point in Ukraine’s history that could have widespread 

constructive effects beyond its borders and the region. 

I have strong affection for the people of Ukraine and the bravery and determination they have shown since the fall of the Soviet Union. I have good memories of 

suggesting an initial pledge of $175 million in Nunn-Lugar assistance to dismantle 

the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal. I carried the Ukrainian message to Secretary of 

State James Baker requesting a strong U.S. diplomatic presence when our representation consisted of a small consular office. The Secretary moved quickly to establish 

an embassy and to send a U.S. Ambassador to Kiev. 

The United States has stood by Ukraine through difficult moments before and we 

must not fail to do so at this critical juncture. My presence in Ukraine during this 

important time was meant to underscore President Bush’s support for the future of 

Ukraine. Free and fair elections in Ukraine embody our hope and goal of a Europe 

whole and free. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Ukraine has dominated newspaper 

headlines and media broadcasts all over the world for the last sixteen days. In that 

time, extraordinary events have occurred. A free press has revolted against government intimidation and reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its political footing. A new generation has found its hope for the future. A society has reVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
12

belled against the illegal activities of its government. It is in our interests to recognize and protect these advances. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Senator, for a very illuminating statement. It is not traditional that we fire questions at 

senatorial witnesses, so tradition immunizes you from that ordeal. 

Senator LUGAR. Well, I look forward to your questions, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. If anybody does have a question. 

Jim, do you? 

Mr. LEACH. Well, I recognize your tradition. I think it is wise, 

but I think the House really is obligated to assert its enormous respect for Senator Lugar. I know of no civil servant that has done 

more for the United States of America in recent times than you 

have, sir. We are very appreciative of what you have done in the 

Ukraine. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, I associate myself with your remarks. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Well, Senator Lugar’s contributions over the years 

have been so enormous and so critical that it is difficult to point 

out any single measure he is responsible for, but I would like to 

do so, and I would like to express on behalf of all of us and all of 

the American people your far-sighted decision on the Nunn-Lugar 

program, dismantling weapons of mass destruction in three of the 

four Soviet Republics which have them, consolidating them in one 

place and now, hopefully, guarding them and protecting them. Dismantling them is one of the great historic achievements of the 

20th, and now the 21st century, for which you and Senator Nunn 

are fully responsible, and we are deeply in your debt, Senator 

Lugar. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, with that, it would be pretty hard to top 

that. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you, very, very much for your very 

thoughtful comments and your encouragement. I reciprocate. We 

look forward to working with you. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. 

Next, I would like to introduce the gentlelady from Ohio, Marcy 

Kaptur. She is serving her 12th term currently in the House, 

where she is Co-Chair of the Ukrainian Caucus, and so it is with 

great pleasure that we ask Ms. Kaptur to say what she has to tell 

us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

AND CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL UKRAINIAN CAUCUS 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you very much, Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos. 

Congressmen Leach and Paul, thank you also very much for the 

great courtesy, for allowing me to testify at this important hearing 

as Co-Chair of the bipartisan House Ukrainian Caucus. It is indeed 

an honor to follow the great Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar. 

13

Please let me submit for the record the names of the Co-Chairs 

of our Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan, Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, along with myself, and a 

full list of members of our caucus, including several who are Members of the International Relations Committee. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, that will be included in the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, history has 

not been kind to the people of Ukraine. Just in the past century 

they have endured a world war, a forced famine at the hands of 

Joseph Stalin as a result of his failed attempts at collectivization 

of the land, another world war, and the ravages of Nazism and brutal domination then for decades under the Soviet Union. Now they 


97187a.eps
14

look to the West, especially to America, as they hope to pull off a 

political miracle. 

They are asking us the question made famous by an American 

sports commentator: Do you believe in miracles? All of us share a 

deep concern for democratic transition in Ukraine’s recent Presidential election and for the welfare of the nearly 50 million people 

of that nation. 

We have all been awed by the courage of the Ukrainian people 

many times during this Thanksgiving season. Ukrainians remind 

us of our own Nation’s Founders and the timeless words that have 

run through our own history; for example, at the base of the Statue 

of Liberty, Emma Lazarus’ words, ‘‘Give me your tired, your poor, 

your huddled masses yearning to be free.’’

Who could look at the huddled masses in the Kiev square and 

not be reminded of our own history and then from our own Declaration of Independence, all people have an unalienable right endowed by their creator to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, 

that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men 

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 

We relived these words in real time as we witnessed hundreds 

of thousands of courageous Ukrainian citizens not only braving 

winter’s bitter, bone-chilling temperatures in Kiev’s central plaza—

and I have felt those myself—but risking their lives and futures as 

Russian troops dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms infiltrated the 

crowds. 

Remarkably, after 2 weeks, no violent incidents marred this incredibly peaceful Orange Revolution. The will of democracy seekers 

is clear. America simply has a moral responsibility, and indeed a 

duty to help plant democracy where it seeks to root, lest this moment be recorded by history as the 21st century’s first Yalta. No 

economic interest or strategic paradigm should divert our Nation 

from standing firmly beside those who are risking all. 

They are bearing testament and giving birth to liberty. They are 

living the vision that John F. Kennedy articulated in his inaugural 

address:

‘‘Let every nation know that we shall pay any price, bear any 

burden, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.’’

It is nothing but miraculous to think that this most recent human 

crescendo for liberty is arising inside borders in which more than 

50 million I repeat, 50 million human beings were annihilated or 

forcibly starved in former times, more human carnage than even 

under Nazi Germany. 

When I first traveled to Ukraine with our mother, Anastasia, in 

1973, long before I was serving as a Member of Congress, I held 

little hope that what we are witnessing today would or could happen in our lifetimes. But we walked the path in that journey of 

hope during the Soviet period to bear witness that borders, and 

even weapons, could not stifle the love of family, the raw truth of 

history and the aspirations of the heart. 

Today, now three decades later as a Member of Congress, I 

would like to submit for the record the official Rada/Congress 

15

agreement that our caucus negotiated and signed in 1999 with our 

legislative counterparts in the New Republic of Ukraine. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to and additional material submitted 

for the record follows:]


97187b.eps
16


97187c.eps
17


97187d.eps
18


97187e.eps
19

Ms. KAPTUR. Our agreement has several objectives. The ink is 

now dry on the signing. But this hangs here in the Congress as a 

permanent testament to our progress, and the agreement seeks to 

first constitute a working group, which we already have established 

with the Rada, to help resolve any issues hampering an extension 

of economic and political cooperation between the United States 

and Ukraine. 

It established items of discussion between our Congress and the 

Rada through this parliamentary exchange to encompass economic 

relations, trade, space exploration, healthcare, the environment, agriculture, natural resources and other matters important to the 

promotion of close ties between the United States and Ukraine. 

And, finally, it is dedicated to convening biannually in the 

United States and Ukraine to formally exchange viewpoints 

brought about by current events, and the U.S. Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange will from time to time issue recommendations 

to be pursued in each legislature. In view of ongoing events in 

Ukraine, I would strongly urge your Committee, building on this 

agreement, to undertake several immediate actions to imbue this 

agreement with added meaning at this juncture: First to strengthen the conversations between the legislative branches of our respective countries, and to help Ukraine’s Rada become an equal 

branch. 

Immediately, I would ask the Committee to consider convening 

several teleconferences through our Library of Congress between 

the Rada and our Congress, including a conference with Speaker 

Vladimir Lytvyn and other interested members of the Rada, to increase dialogue on matters of mutual interest regarding fair elections during this critical transition period. Those could be started 

almost immediately. 

Second, to establish a fund for a legislative staff exchange between the United States Congress and the Rada to support the advancement of staff policy capability. And, thirdly, to reissue our request, prior to the Thanksgiving holiday, to organize an official congressional delegation to travel to Ukraine related to the re-vote and 

to assist during the election in any way that we could be supportive. 

I want to say formally for the record, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, that I wholeheartedly support this re-vote 

in Ukraine’s elections, but am very mindful of the careful attention 

that we must dedicate to our relationship with Russia. Diplomatically, culturally, educationally, economically, surely, Congress must 

expand and formalize upon our ongoing and valuable relationship 

with the Duma. A stable and economically healthy Russia as well 

as Ukraine are in the world’s interest. 

During these last few weeks, in my role as Ukrainian Co-Chair 

of this caucus and a friend of the Ukraine people, I literally have 

received dozens and dozens of e-mails and letters from people in 

Kiev and throughout the countryside. I am only going to give brief 

quotes from three of them, and we will submit the others for the 

record. 

But let me just say, in terms of voter suppression, I had a telephone conversation with a Ukrainian citizen residing in Moscow 

who explained to me how her vote was denied as she sought to cast 

20

her vote at the Ukrainian Embassy in Moscow, made to wait in 

line for nearly an hour, experiencing administrative delays, and 

then denied her vote. We must pay particular attention to those 

who are casting their votes in adjacent nations and republics in 

this election monitoring process. 

Another comment from someone I will call Katya, who said to 

me, ‘‘Hundreds of students have left our city for Kiev to participate 

in the Orange Revolution. I hope the position of the United States 

will force the powers to recognize the results of the elections. 

Please pray for us.’’ That was written to us almost 21⁄2 weeks ago. 

From Natalia, who said to us, ‘‘I have not seen this type of emotion in our people since 1990, when the student fasts helped us to 

obtain independence. This past uprising is nothing in comparison 

to the situation that confronts us now. I am proud of our people 

for taking a stand. As I write this, thousands of people from across 

Ukraine are coming through the subways and are gathered in the 

streets of Kiev despite the brutal cold and constant snow.’’

And finally, from Oleksander, who said, ‘‘Last night 500,000 people gathered in Independence Square. I have never seen such a sea 

of people in my life. It is a credit to our country that the entire 

crowd of Yushchenko supporters is sober and well-behaved. Help 

us, help us, in any way you can, do not let our people stand alone 

in their fight for democracy. Please keep us in your prayers.’’

Mr. Chairman, I will submit the other comments for the record, 

and merely end by saying Ukraine and the people of that important nation look to the West as they hope to pull off a political miracle. They are asking us the question made famous by an American 

commentator: Do you believe in miracles? Do we believe in miracles? Does this Congress believe in miracles? 

Thank you. I implore you to do what we can, as the premier legislative body of our Nation, in helping these people gain the freedom for which their ancestors died. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Kaptur follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for allowing me the great courtesy of testifying at this important hearing as co-chair of the bipartisan House Ukrainian Caucus. Please let me submit for 

the Record the names of the co-chairs of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus: Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (MD–6) , Congressman Sander Levin (MI–12) , Congressman Curt Weldon (PA–7) and myself, along with the full list of names of our Caucus 

members. 

Mr. Chairman, history has not been kind to the people of Ukraine. Just in the 

past century, they have endured a world war, famine at the hands of Stalin as a 

result of his failed scheme of collectivization, another world war and the ravages of 

Nazism, and brutal domination under the Soviet Union. 

Now, they look to the West as they hope to pull off a political miracle. 

They are asking us the question made famous by an American sports commentator. Do you believe in miracles? 

Our answer as a nation must be ‘‘Yes.’’

Yes, we do believe in miracles. And we believe in yours. 

All of us share a deep concern for democratic transition in Ukraine’s recent presidential election and for the welfare of the people of that nation. We all have been 

awed by the courage of the Ukrainian people many times since the Thanksgiving 

holiday here in the United States. Ukrainians remind us of our own nation’s founders and the timeless words that have run through our own history: 

Ukrainians are reminding us of timeless words that have run through our own 

history. 

21

From Emma Lazarus at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...

And from our Declaration of Independence:

All people have unalienable rights endowed by their Creator: ‘‘Life, Liberty 

and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the 

governed . . .’’

We relived these words in real time as we witnessed hundreds of thousands of 

Ukrainian citizens not only having braved winter’s bitter bone-chilling cold in Kiev’s 

central plaza—but risking their lives and futures—as Russian troops dressed in 

Ukrainian Army uniforms infiltrated the crowds. (This comes from credible sources, 

including former Members of Congress and Paul Miazga, Kyiv Post Senior Editor). 

Remarkably, after two weeks, no violent incidents marred this incredibly peaceful 

Orange Revolution. The will of democracy seekers is clear. America simply has a 

moral responsibility and indeed, a duty, to help plant democracy where it seeks to 

root, lest this moment be recorded by history as the 21st Century’s first Yalta. 

No economic interest or strategic paradigm should divert our nation from standing firmly beside those who are risking all. They are bearing testament and giving 

birth to liberty. They are living the vision that John F. Kennedy articulated in his 

Inaugural Address:

Let every nation know . . . That we shall pay any price, bear any burden, 

Support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.

It is nothing but miraculous to think that this most recent human crescendo for 

liberty is arising inside borders in which more than 50 million beings were annihilated or forcibly starved in former times—more human carnage indeed than by Nazi 

Germany. 

When I first traveled to Ukraine with our mother, Anastasia, in 1973, long before 

I was serving as a Member of Congress, I held little hope that what we are witnessing today would or could happen in our lifetimes. But we walked the path in 

that journey of hope during the Soviet period to bear witness that borders, and even 

weapons, could not stifle the love of family, the raw truth of history, and the aspirations of the heart. Today, now three decades later, as a Member of Congress, I 

would like to submit for the Record the official Rada-Congress Agreement that our 

Caucus negotiated and signed in 1999 with our legislative counterparts in the new 

Republic of Ukraine. 

Our Agreement has several objectives:

1) Constitute a Working Group to help resolve any issues hampering an expansion of economic and political cooperation between the United States and 

Ukraine;

2) Establish items of discussion by the Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange 

(CRPE) which encompass economic relations, trade, space exploration, 

health-care, the environment, agriculture, natural resources, and any other 

matter important to the promotion of close ties between the United States 

and Ukraine; and

3) Convene biannually in the United States and Ukraine to formally exchange 

viewpoints brought about by current events. The Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange will from time to time issue recommendations to be pursued 

in each legislature.

In view of ongoing events in Ukraine, I would strongly urge this Committee, 

building on this agreement, to undertake several immediate actions to imbue this 

Agreement with real meaning at this juncture:

(1) Schedule several teleconferences between the Rada and Congress, including 

a conference with Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and other interested members 

of the Ukraine, to increase dialogue on matters of mutual interest and during this crucial transition period.

(2) Establish immediately and fund a legislative staff exchange between the 

U.S. Congress and the Rada to support advancement of staff policy capability.

(3) Organize a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) to travel to Ukraine related 

to the revote and to assist during the election as monitors.

22

During these last few weeks, in my role as Ukrainian Caucus co-chair and friend 

of the Ukrainian people, I have received e-mails and letters from people in Kyiv and 

throughout the countryside. For the record, I would like to submit some of them and 

will close in reading three short excerpts:

• From Katya: ‘‘Hundreds of students have left our city for Kyiv to participate 

in the ’Orange Revolution.’ I hope that the position of the USA will force the 

power to recognize the results of the elections. Please pray for us.’’

• From Natalya: ‘‘I have not seen this type of emotion in our people since 1990 

when the student fasts helped us to attain independence. This past uprising 

is nothing in comparison to the situation that confronts us now. I am proud 

of our people for taking a stand. As I write this, thousands of people from 

across Ukraine are gathered in the streets of Kyiv despite the brutal cold and 

constant snow.’’

• And, from Olexander: ‘‘Last night, 500,000 people gathered in Independence 

Square. I have never seen such a sea of people in my life. It is a credit to 

our country that the entire crowd of Yushchenko supporters is sober and well 

behaved. Help us in any way that you can. Do not let our people stand alone 

in their fight for democracy. Please keep us in your prayers.’’

• From Andrei: ‘‘Please pray for us.’’

• From Sergiy: ‘‘I have never seen people of Ukraine assemble like this since 

the hunger strikes of 1993—and this is larger.’’

• From Ihor, an example of how the people in the arts are suffering: ‘‘We lost 

three rehearsals last week due to there being no power in the hall—most likely a government provocation, I fear. At our concerts a number of men in the 

[omitted to protect Ihor] wore elegant orange handkerchiefs in the lapel of 

their coats and some of the women wore elegant orange headbands. We received an official letter the other day warning us that our contract would be 

cancelled if we continued to engage in ’political games.’

• From William, an American who traveled to Ukraine to oversee the elections: 

‘‘We are hearing credible reports that President Putin has sent in Russian 

troops into eastern Ukraine. These Russian troops are said to be wearing 

Ukrainian uniforms—a clear violation of international law.’’

• From a Washington Post editorial: Mr. Putin, who has channeled hundreds 

of millions of dollars into the prime minister’s campaign, is backing the imposition of an authoritarian system along the lines of the one he is creating in 

Russia—with a propagandistic regime, controlled media, official persecution of 

dissent, business executives who take orders from the state, and elections 

that are neither free not fair.

• From the International Herald Tribune: For 13 years the EU has been indifferent to democracy in Ukraine. EU policies toward Ukraine suggest that Europe is indifferent to democracy—except when supporting democracy is easy 

and accords with its crude self interests. Ukraine was, and still is, a transitional post-Soviet state.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Marcy, for a very helpful statement. 

Without objection, the documentation you have submitted will be 

placed in the record at this point in the proceedings. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. I now would like to welcome our third witness, 

Ambassador John Tefft, who is Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department. 

Ambassador Tefft has been a member of the Foreign Service 

since 1972. Prior to his appointment as Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of State, he served as International Affairs Adviser, Deputy Commandant at the National War College in Washington. He has also 

served as Ambassador to Lithuania, as well as Deputy Chief of 

Mission at our Embassy in Moscow and has held other numerous 

positions of leadership in the Department of State throughout his 

long career. 

23

Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. I know this is the first time you have 

appeared before this Committee, and we are looking forward to 

your testimony. 

If you could summarize your opening statement, your written 

testimony will be made a part of the record, and you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. TEFFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. TEFFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of 

the Committee. I am really honored to be here with Senator Lugar 

and Representative Kaptur to discuss with you recurring developments in Ukraine and in United States policy. As you have requested, I shall try to summarize the longer statement that we will 

introduce into the record and provide an assessment of the problems in the election that led to the current crisis; our position on 

the efforts aimed at resolving the crisis; lessons learned from the 

earlier votes that could be useful in helping avoid a repeat of the 

fraud and abuse; the role of U.S. policy in helping to resolve this 

process; the impact of the current situation on other countries in 

the region; and an assessment of U.S. policy options for the period 

after the situation is resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, more than a dozen years ago, Ukrainians chose 

freedom and independence and set their country on a path toward 

democracy and prosperity. This path has not been easy, but the 

Ukrainian people have remained committed to the principles of 

independence and self-determination. We now see the depth of that 

commitment on the streets of Kiev and all over Ukraine. The current crisis arose because the Ukrainian people rejected the massive 

fraud and abuse that characterized the November 21st second 

round of the Presidential election. 

Senator Lugar, who was in Ukraine as the President’s representative and has testified before you today, noted the concerted and 

forceful program of election day fraud and abuse with either the 

leadership or the cooperation of governmental authorities. 

The OSCE report said that the election did not meet a considerable number of international standards and assessed it less favorably than the tainted first round of elections on October 21st. Specifically on the election day on November 21st, there were significant violations, to include the following: Illegal use of absentee ballots; opposition observers ejected from most polling stations in eastern Ukraine on the election day; what the OSCE termed a ‘‘North 

Korean style turnout’’ in the east with 96 percent reported in the 

Luhansk oblast alone; mobile ballot box fraud; computer data allegedly altered to favor Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych; and reports of opposition fraud. To be sure, reports of efforts of proYanukovych fraud greatly, greatly outweighed those indicated for 

Mr. Yushchenko. 

The final figures announced by the Central Election Commission 

showed a victory for Yanukovych with 49.46 percent over 46.61 

percent for Mr. Yushchenko. It is impossible to know what the real 

numbers were, but clearly a large-scale nationwide anonymous exit 

poll conducted by a consortium of three highly-respected organizations and partially funded by the United States Government proVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

jected Yushchenko the winner with 54 percent to 42 percent for 

Mr. Yanukovych. Other exit polls and other parallel vote counts indicated similar results. 

On November 22nd, the Central Election Commission announced 

preliminary results showing Yanukovych in the lead. Yushchenko 

supporters began pouring into the streets, wearing orange ribbons 

and scarves, the color of the opposition. In Kiev, their numbers 

have been as high as 200,000, despite daily temperatures below 

freezing. The protests have generally been orderly and nonviolent. 

In the east and in the south several governors have said they 

would seek autonomy or even secession from the Ukraine if 

Yushchenko were to be declared the winner. 

Many Government functionaries, however, from various institutions, have declared their support for free and fair process. The 

Ukrainian military and troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 

have thus far refrained from using force, though there were credible indications that Government officials were at one point preparing to crack down on protesters. 

As the crisis has grown, so too have the efforts to resolve it. 

International mediation efforts were begun by Polish President 

Kwasniewski, Lithuanian President Adamkus, EU High Representative Solana and the OSCE Secretary-General, Mr. Kubis. A roundtable framework for negotiations was set up to include Yushchenko, 

Yanukovych, President Kuchma, Rada Speaker Lytvyn and the European mediators. Russian Duma Speaker, Mr. Gryzlov, joined 

those discussions at some points. 

The roundtable produced an agreement that included an opposition promise not to block Government buildings and renewed 

pledges from both sides to refrain from violence, reform electoral 

legislation and preserve the country’s territorial integrity. 

On December 3rd, as you know, the Supreme Court announced 

its decision, held that there had been significant fraud in the second round, declaring the vote invalid and ordering a new vote on 

December 26th. The Rada continues to debate revisions to the election law to prevent the identified problems and weaknesses from 

recurring in the repeat of that second round. 

This morning roundtable and other negotiations continue. The 

talks involve complex and difficult issues, and the assessment I can 

provide you could quickly be overtaken by events. As we understand the latest development, the sides have agreed in principle to 

the appointment of new Central Election Commission members and 

revisions of the electoral law. 

They may also have tentatively agreed on a possible date for 

changes to the Constitution which would shift powers from the 

Presidency to the Rada and to the Prime Minister. A sticking point 

appears to be the question of Prime Minister Yanukovych and his 

ministers remaining in office following the Rada’s no confidence 

vote. 

We believe both sides have probably come too far not to reach 

some kind of final agreement, but as I said, negotiations are complex and ongoing. 

From the many obvious problems in the election, a number of 

specific lessons emerged that would be helpful in reducing or avoiding fraud in the next election. First, the absolute necessity of mainVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
25

taining or increasing the number of domestic and international 

election observers, particularly those from the OSCE; strengthening legal protections for domestic observers; developing strict 

controls on absentee and mobile voting and on registration lists; 

strengthening independence and transparency of election commissions; increasing penalties against those who intimidate party activists and voters and against those who engage in fraud; providing 

greater media access for the opposition; and ensuring independent 

media outlets are protected against Government harassment; 

strengthening public commitment of national leaders and regional 

and local officials to free and fair election processes. Ukraine’s leaders must lead by word and by example. 

Finally, ensuring that the international community is focused on 

the re-vote, especially given that it takes place the day after 

Christmas. We understand, Mr. Chairman, that some of these most 

important lessons have been incorporated into the electoral law revisions that are currently being considered by the Ukrainian Rada 

in negotiations, though their effectiveness would ultimately depend 

clearly on implementation. 

Let me say a word about United States policy. The primary focus 

of United States-Ukrainian relations over the past year has been 

on the Presidential election. Over a period of many months, the 

United States and our European allies repeatedly advised Ukrainian authorities, both publicly and privately, that we were watching, 

watching very closely, and consider it a test of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. 

The United States-funded assistance to independent media, political party development, voter awareness and education, training for 

election officials and observers and more. Our election-related assistance to Ukraine was approximately $13.8 million. Of particular 

note, the United States funded what we believe was an unprecedented election observer effort. 

As Senator Lugar noted, we have now submitted a congressional notification of $3 million to provide funding for election-related activities in the re-vote on the 26th of December. Given the fast approaching date, we hope the obligation can be acted on quickly. 

Beginning last February, a wide range of senior United States officials and prominent private citizens visited Ukraine, carrying a 

strong message about the importance of democratic elections to 

Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. These included Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, former President Bush, former Secretaries Albright and Kissinger, many Congressmen and Senators, including Senator Lugar. 

The President, as Senator Lugar has testified, asked him to return in December as his personal representative to deliver a letter 

to President Kuchma and to personally observe and to comment on 

the conduct of the voting. 

The White House and the State Department over the last months 

have issued numerous hard-hitting statements on the situation in 

Ukraine. Secretary Powell has spoken often to President Kuchma, 

to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Polish President Kwasniewski, 

EU High Representative Solana and many others. President Bush 

has made known his strong support and deep appreciation for the 

mediation efforts of the European leaders. 

26

We and our NATO allies are united in support of democracy in 

Ukraine. We have reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine’s 

territorial integrity and our complete rejection of separatist initiatives. We have called on all parties to avoid violence, confrontation 

and unhelpful rhetoric. We asked them to work constructively toward a peaceful and just resolution of the impasse that truly reflects the will of the Ukrainian people. As President Bush has said, 

our common goal is to see the will of the Ukrainian people prevail. 

As for Russia, we have discussed repeatedly with Russian officials our concern over the conduct of the Ukrainian campaign and 

the elections and the role of Russian citizens in that process. We 

have consistently encouraged the Russian Government to join other 

OSCE member-states in organizing common monitoring and mediation activities to promote a free and fair election that reflects the 

will of the Ukrainian people. We have urged them to refrain from 

any activities that could limit Ukraine’s ability to choose freely. 

As Secretary Powell said this morning in Sofia, Bulgaria, at the 

OSCE ministerial conference, you can have friends to the east and 

to the west. It is not a matter of sphere of influence. It is a matter 

of allowing a country to choose how it wishes to be governed and 

who it wishes to have as its friends. 

The crisis in Ukraine remains far from final resolution, Mr. 

Chairman, so it is difficult to predict its long-term impact on other 

countries in the region. Democracy in the countries of the former 

Soviet Union has lately had its ups and downs. If, in the end, the 

democratic process prevails and there is a result in Ukraine that 

reflects the will of the Ukrainian people, it could have a potentially 

major impact for the development of democracy in the region. It is 

in the interest of everyone to see Ukraine develop into a democratic, market-oriented nation with good relations with all its 

neighbors and with other members of the European and Euro-Atlantic communities. The stakes in the outcome of this Ukrainian 

crisis, thus, could hardly be higher. 

Over the long term, U.S. strategic interests have remained 

steady for more than a dozen years. They will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of this election. The United States wants 

to see Ukraine develop as a secure, independent, democratic and 

economically prosperous country that increasingly draws closer to 

European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

United States policies toward Ukraine for the period following 

the Presidential election must be properly calibrated to provide an 

appropriately positive or negative immediate response to the election while furthering our long-term strategic interests in Ukraine 

and the region. We want to encourage Ukraine to maintain its 

peacekeeping contingents abroad including in Iraq, Kosovo and 

other peacekeeping operations, but we will not allow those deployments to become reasons to excuse or ignore democratic shortcomings in Ukraine. 

Our bottom line is this: We are prepared to work closely with 

any candidate who wins in a free and fair contest that meets international democratic standards. We are prepared to move quickly on 

a number of issues that are important to Ukraine. At the same 

time, if the repeat election once again fails to meet democratic 

standards, there will be consequences for our relationship, for 

27

Ukraine’s hopes for Euro-Atlantic integration, and for individuals 

responsible for perpetrating fraud. This includes consideration of 

further use of Presidential Proclamation 7750, which denies visas 

to individuals engaged in corrupt and antidemocratic activities. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the United States 

wants a secure, independent, democratic Ukraine. A democratic 

election on December 26, whose outcome reflects the will of the 

Ukrainian people, would be a very important step in this direction. 

The Administration is committed to helping Ukraine achieve this 

goal and looks forward to working with whoever wins in a free and 

fair process. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before the Committee today, and I will be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tefft follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. TEFFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you current developments in Ukraine and U.S. policy. 

As requested, I shall provide our assessment of the problems in the election that 

led to the current crisis, the U.S. position on the negotiations and other efforts 

aimed at resolving the crisis, the lessons learned in the earlier votes that could be 

useful in helping avoid a repeat of the fraud and abuse, the role of U.S. policy in 

helping to resolve the crisis, the impact of the current situation on other countries 

in the region, and an assessment of U.S. policy options for the period after the situation is resolved. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

More than a dozen years ago, Ukrainians chose freedom and independence and 

set their country on a path toward democracy and prosperity. This path has not 

been easy, but the Ukrainian people have remained committed to the principles of 

independence and self-determination. We now see the depth of that commitment on 

the streets of Kiev and all over Ukraine. 

The current crisis came to a head when the Ukrainian people rejected the massive 

fraud and abuse that characterized the November 21 second round of the presidential election. The numerous problems that characterized the voting in the election’s second round, however, were the culmination of months of irregularities, intimidation, and abuse by the pro-presidential side. In fact, the entire presidential 

campaign for almost the last year was plagued by difficulties. In his testimony before your Subcommittee on Europe last May, my predecessor, Deputy Assistant Secretary Steven Pifer, described in detail the many problems in the electoral campaign, including harassment of opposition politicians and those who supported them; 

obstruction and preclusion of opposition campaign events; abuse of state resources 

to support the government’s candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych; a nearmonopoly of media attention for Yanukovych; violence and intimidation directed 

against independent media outlets; and eleventh-hour attempts to change the 

Ukrainian Constitution to extend the current authorities’ hold on power. Despite 

strong messages from the United States, including from President Bush, and the 

international community against such actions, the Ukrainian authorities made little 

effort to rectify these imbalances. These problems in the campaign persisted up to 

the moment voting began. 

The first round of balloting on October 31, too, was plagued by numerous problems and irregularities. The report of the observer mission of the OSCE’s Office of 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) found that the first round 

failed to meet a considerable number of international standards for democratic elections and, thus, represented a ‘‘step backwards’’ from the 2002 Rada election, the 

last major election in Ukraine. Despite the many problems in the first round, however, there was no serious doubt that opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko and 

Prime Minister Yanukovych received more votes than any of the other candidates 

(39.87 percent and 39.32 percent, respectively, as determined by the Central ElecVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
28

tion Commission) and were thus entitled to run in the second round on November 

21. (Ukrainian law provides that if no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast 

in the presidential election, the two candidates who received the largest number of 

votes should stand for a winner-take-all second round of voting held several weeks 

after the first round.) In their reports, the OSCE and other election observers detailed a number of ways in which Ukraine’s electoral machinery needed to be fixed 

or adjusted in order to make the second round of voting free and fair to both candidates. 

Despite the hopes of the Ukrainian people and the international community that 

the Ukrainian authorities would heed those recommendations, the second round of 

voting featured even greater and more widespread fraud and abuse. Senator Lugar, 

in Ukraine as President Bush’s representative, who testified before you today, noted 

‘‘a concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse . . . with either 

the leadership or cooperation of the governmental authorities.’’ The OSCE/ODIHR’s 

report said that the election did not meet ‘‘a considerable number’’ of international 

standards, and that, as in the first round, state executive authorities and the Central Election Commission displayed a lack of will to conduct a genuinely democratic 

election process. ODIHR assessed the second round ‘‘less favorably’’ than the tainted 

October 31 first round vote. A U.S.-funded foreign NGO observer mission also described ‘‘a coordinated, systematic pattern of major violations leading to an outcome 

that does not reflect the will of the Ukrainian people.’’

The following are examples of the most egregious, widely observed and reported 

examples of election-day fraud on November 21:

• Illegal Use of Absentee Ballots: According to the respected NGO ‘‘Committee 

of Voters of Ukraine’’ (CVU), massive electoral fraud was committed through 

the illegal use of absentee voter certificates. For example, people were caught 

in Dnipropetrovsk and Sumy oblasts with their pockets stuffed with blank absentee ballots that they were using to vote at multiple polling stations.

• Opposition Observers Ejected: Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling stations in eastern Ukraine on 

Election Day. For example, in Territorial Election Commission (TEC) district 

number 42 in Donetsk oblast, Our Ukraine observers were kicked out of all 

but a few polling stations.

• North Korean-Style Turnout in the East: Turnout in the pro-Yanukovych eastern oblasts was unnaturally high. In several electoral districts, turnout for 

the run-off round increased by 30 to 40 percent over the first round. In 

Luhansk oblast, the reported turnout rate hit nearly 96 percent—a number 

that, to quote the OSCE, even Stalinist North Korea would envy. A similar 

turnout rate was reported in Donetsk oblast, where 98 percent of the votes 

went to hometown candidate Prime Minister Yanukovych.

• Mobile Ballot Box Fraud: In the second round of the election, the number of 

voters who supposedly cast ballots at home using mobile ballot boxes was 

double that of the first round. Much of this voting occurred without observers 

being present and was massively fraudulent. In Mykolayiv oblast, for example, nearly 35 percent of the oblast’s voters purportedly cast their ballots ‘‘at 

home.’’

• Computer Data Allegedly Altered To Favor Yanukovych: There were credible 

reports showing that that Yanukovych supporters gained illegal access to the 

Central Election Commission’s computer system and illegally altered vote tabulation data being transmitted by TECs to the CEC.

• Reports of Opposition Fraud: Yanykovych’s supporters allege that 

Yushchenko’s supporters stuffed ballot boxes in western Ukraine. But the reports and evidence of pro-Yanukovych fraud greatly outweighed those indicated for Yushchenko.

This massive ballot-box stuffing, fake turnout figures, and other forms of fraud 

and abuse allowed the authorities to create a victory for their candidate that almost 

certainly would not have been possible in a free and fair election. The final figures 

announced by the Central Election Commission (CEC) gave Prime Minister 

Yanukovych with 49.46 percent of the vote over opposition candidate Yushchenko 

with 46.61 percent. It is impossible to know what the real numbers were, but a 

large-scale (20,000 respondents), nation-wide anonymous exit poll conducted by a 

consortium of three highly respected research organizations (partially funded by the 

United States Government) projected Yushchenko the winner with 53 percent 

versus 44 percent for Yanukovych. Other exit polls and parallel vote counts indicated a Yushchenko victory, although by lesser amounts. 

29

POST-ELECTION CRISIS

On November 22, the Central Elections Commission (CEC) announced preliminary results showing Yanukovych in the lead. Yushchenko supporters began pouring into the streets wearing orange ribbons and scarves, the campaign color of the 

opposition. In Kiev, their numbers have been as high as 200,000, despite daily temperatures below freezing. Pro-Yushchenko rallies also have occurred in several provincial capitals and other cities across Ukraine, including in eastern Ukraine. 

Yanukovych supporters have also demonstrated in support of their candidate, but 

with nowhere near the numbers or consistency of the Yushchenko supporters. The 

protests have generally been orderly and non-violent, though demonstrators have 

blocked access to government buildings and thus have impeded the legal functioning 

of the government and its institutions. 

A number of city councils declared Yushchenko the rightful president. In the east 

and south, several governors have declared that they would seek autonomy or even 

secession from Ukraine if Yushchenko were to be declared the winner; these calls 

were criticized by most Ukrainian leaders, including Kuchma, but not Yanukovych. 

Many government functionaries from various institutions have declared their allegiance to the opposition. The latter include several diplomats at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, who issued a statement decrying fraud in the election, supporting Yushchenko as the winner, and calling on other members of the Ukrainian 

diplomatic corps to join their protest. Three hundred other diplomats reportedly 

have signed their letter. 

The Ukrainian military has thus far remained on the sidelines of the crisis. Defense Minister Kuzmuk—a Kuchma loyalist who was appointed shortly before the 

first-round election in what many observers interpreted as an effort by President 

Kuchma to strengthen his hold over the military in case of post-election trouble—

has said the military would remain politically neutral. Nevertheless, there have 

been reports of troop movements at times, and credible indications that government 

officials were, at one point, preparing to crack down on the protestors. Ukrainian 

police units and troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVS) guard government 

buildings and have also thus far refrained from the use of force. There are many 

reports of police officers and MVS troops fraternizing with demonstrators, but we 

believe that if a crackdown on the protests were to be ordered, it would be these 

units who would be asked to carry out the orders. 

In the days after the election, the political situation began to impact Ukraine’s 

economy. The uncertainty caused by separatist calls emanating from the November 

28 meeting in Severodonetsk, Luhansk oblast exacerbated fears, especially in eastern Ukraine. PM Yanukovych and Deputy PM Azarov likewise complained that 

demonstrators’ disruption of the government’s operations was chilling economic activity. On November 30, the National Bank of Ukraine (the Central Bank) imposed 

a series of currency controls restricting purchases of dollars, limiting cash withdrawals, blocking early payment of fixed-term deposits, and freezing bank assets 

levels (thereby effectively prohibiting new bank lending). On December 3, the Rada 

passed a resolution ordering prices of industrial and domestic goods to be frozen at 

the November 30 levels, and calling on the government to take other measures it 

deemed necessary to avert a financial crisis. However, this resolution apparently 

has no legal force. We have received some reports, especially from eastern Ukraine, 

of customers being unable to access their bank accounts, and complaining of cash 

shortages. Experts believe Ukraine has sufficient foreign reserves to meet demand, 

and that Ukraine’s robust economy—which has grown by more than 12.5% this 

year—will be able to withstand the current pressure, but we continue to monitor 

the situation closely. 

RESOLVING THE CURRENT CRISIS

As the political crisis has grown, so too have the efforts to resolve it. The Ukrainian leadership and government at first appeared stunned and surprised by the 

strong reaction of Ukrainians to the reports of fraud, and evidently believed that 

the demonstrations would melt away and protestors return home as temperatures 

dropped and the finality of the results sank in. A precedent for such a scenario was 

set in 2001, when large-scale protests following revelations of the probable involvement of President Kuchma in the disappearance and murder of an investigative 

journalist eventually died out as protestors realized the government would not yield 

to their moral outrage. This time, however, the protestors have been able to maintain discipline and their numbers have not declined. Their resolve appeared to 

strengthen after the CEC announced final election results, followed by the Supreme 

Court’s announcement on November 24 that the final results could not be promulVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
30

gated (and thus become official) until the Court heard the opposition’s case for election fraud. 

With no apparent resolution of the crisis in sight, Polish President Kwasniewski, 

joined by Lithuanian President Adamkus, EU High Representative for Foreign and 

Security Policy Javier Solana, and OSCE Secretary General Jan Kubis, offered 

international mediation assistance. A roundtable framework for negotiations was set 

up to include Yushchenko, Yanukovych, Kuchma, Rada speaker Lytvyn, and the European mediators. Russian Duma speaker Gryzlov at times has participated in the 

roundtable sessions as well. The first roundtable session produced pledges from both 

sides to refrain from violence and set up a Working Group of representatives of both 

sides. The second session on December 1 produced a preliminary agreement that included an opposition promise not to block government buildings, and renewed 

pledges from both sides to refrain from violence, reform electoral legislation, and 

preserve the country’s territorial integrity. There was also a controversial pledge to 

adopt constitutional reforms, which had been rejected by the Rada last summer but 

are still supported by President Kuchma. The constitutional change would shift significant power from the presidency to the Rada and prime minister. The roundtable 

agreement did not address the central question of resolving the fraudulent second 

round of voting, delaying any discussion of that issue until after the announcement 

of the Supreme Court’s decision on the opposition’s complaints. 

On December 1, the Rada passed a resolution expressing no confidence in the 

Yanukovych government and calling on the President to name a new government 

of national unity. There were certain technical questions about the legality of the 

resolution and it was unclear when or if President Kuchma would have to dismiss 

the government. On December 3, after hearing testimony from both sides, the Supreme Court confirmed that there had been significant fraud in the second round 

vote, declared the vote invalid, and ordered a new vote by December 26. The Rada 

continues to debate revisions to the election law to prevent the identified problems 

and weaknesses from recurring in the repeat of second-round voting. We have urged 

all parties to move ahead quickly to adopt the necessary measures to ensure a new 

vote is free and fair, and results in an outcome that reflects the will of the Ukrainian people. 

LESSONS LEARNED

From the many obvious problems in the first and second rounds of the Ukrainian 

vote, a number of specific lessons emerged that would be helpful in reducing or 

avoiding fraud in another election:

• First, the absolute necessity of maintaining or increasing the number of domestic and international election observers, particularly those working under 

the auspices of the OSCE/ODIHR. It is a sad, but true fact that it is extremely difficult to detect and deter fraud and abuse by a candidate and his 

supporters who have at their disposal all the resources of the state, including 

local authorities. The Ukrainian case, as well as the case of Georgia earlier, 

demonstrate that it is only through the Herculean efforts of tens of thousands 

of individual domestic and international election observers (both from OSCE/

ODIHR and from NGOs) and others committed to a free and fair process that 

fraud and abuse come to light.

• Next, the need to strengthen access, legal opportunities and protections for 

domestic observers. There were many instances in which Ukrainians acting 

as observers were simply locked out of polling stations and not permitted to 

do their jobs. Moreover, Ukrainian legislation on elections does not provide 

for the registration of domestic election observers and those observers who did 

work during the election were forced to register as journalists.

• Likewise, the critical importance of developing legislative and oversight mechanisms to eliminate the possibility for fraud during absentee and mobile voting.

• Also of importance is the need to strengthen legal controls over, and 

verification of, voter registration lists to ensure that opposition supporters are 

not excluded while names of deceased and other bogus voters are not added.

• Strengthen and revise legislation regarding election commissions. In many 

cases, opposition supporters were excluded from serving on election commissions, despite legislation providing for balanced commission memberships. 

The functioning of commissions at the local, regional, and national levels was 

also in many instances non-transparent. Thirdly, election commissions should 

be protected from outside pressure by officials. Fourthly, protect election comVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
31

mission computer systems from parallel or alternate servers, which reportedly 

were used to alter election figures transmitted from the field.

• Increase, and strengthen legal enforcement of, penalties against those who intimidate party activists and voters. In some cases, intimidation was perpetrated by local officials; in other cases by gangs of skinhead thugs.

• Increase, and strengthen legal enforcement of, penalties against officials at 

various levels who engage in fraud. While election fraud is illegal in Ukraine, 

enforcement is sporadic at best and often itself politically motivated.

• Ensure equal media access for all candidates and ensure independent media 

outlets are protected against government harassment. The current crisis has 

led many journalists to declare their freedom from government control and 

censorship and attempts by the authorities to dictate coverage appear to have 

weakened. Such positive trends should be extended and institutionalized.

• Strengthen public commitment of national leaders and regional and local officials to free and fair election processes. Before the election, Ukrainian officials 

repeatedly and openly admitted that the election would not be entirely 

‘‘clean.’’ Such admissions—while perhaps a realistic appraisal from a political 

scientist—became an incitement and license for abuse when stated by national political leaders. Ukraine’s leaders must lead by word and by example.

• Ensure the international community is focused on the re-vote, especially 

given that it will take place the day after Christmas. The international community’s scrutiny undoubtedly helped deter some fraud in previous votes. 

ROLE OF U.S. POLICY

The primary focus of U.S.-Ukraine relations over the past year has been the conduct of the presidential campaign and election. Over a period of many months, the 

U.S. and our European partners repeatedly advised Ukrainian authorities, publicly 

and privately, that we were watching the election closely and considered it a test 

of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. 

Our interest is in seeing Ukraine develop as a stable, independent, democratic, 

prosperous country with an economy based on free-market principles, one that respects and promotes human rights and abides by the rule of law, and draws closer 

to European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. We made clear that the conduct of the 

campaign and election-day voting would determine the democratic credentials and 

credibility of Ukraine’s political leadership as well as the country’s strategic course 

for the next decade. We specifically stressed that the conduct of elections would 

have significant implications for our relations; the manner in which the next president was elected would directly impact our ability to work with that president. 

We did not—and do not—favor a specific candidate. The United States has 

pledged repeatedly that it would work with whoever won a free and fair election. 

We have focused on ensuring that Ukrainians had an opportunity to choose their 

next leader freely, without coercion or manipulation. 

The United State government has worked consistently throughout 2004 to promote a free, fair campaign and election in Ukraine:

• We have made clear, consistent public statements about the positive and negative implications for Ukraine depending on the conduct of the election;

• We kept up a steady-stream of high-level visitors (both official and unofficial) 

to underscore our message privately;

• We have used all of our high-level meetings with Ukrainians to underscore 

our expectations and concerns about the election, including President Bush at 

the NATO-Ukraine Commission Summit in Istanbul, as well as bilateral 

meetings of Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice;

• We have tried to ‘‘raise the bar’’ for fraud by focusing our assistance in ways 

that would help to expose large-scale fraud (such as parallel vote counts and 

independent exit polls);

• We funded one of the largest international election observer efforts ever undertaken;

• We demonstrated the personal consequences of electoral misconduct by denying visas for individuals engaged in fraud and anti-democratic behavior;

• We welcomed Rada Speaker Lytvyn to Washington five days before the runoff to underscore our support for a legislative body committed to ensuring an 

outcome that reflected the will of the people;

• We have welcomed Congressional activity on Ukraine (resolutions, floor statements, visits); and

32

• President Bush asked Senator Lugar to deliver a message directly to President Kuchma on the eve of the vote.

The United States provided funding to support independent media, provide nonpartisan political party training, voter awareness and education, training for election officials and observers, and more. All of this assistance was provided on a nonpartisan basis. For instance, political party training funded by the U.S. government 

is open to all parties on an equal basis. Our election-related assistance to Ukraine 

totaled approximately $13.8 million. The U.S. also funded thousands of international observers. This included the U.S. contribution funding the approximately 

600-person OSCE observer mission; additional funding for another 100 observers 

under special agreement with the countries of Central Europe; and funding for an 

additional 1,000 foreign NGO representatives organized by Freedom House and the 

European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO). In addition, 

some 10,000 domestic observers were organized by the Ukrainian NGO Committee 

of Voters of Ukraine, which receives partial support from the U.S. Government via 

NDI. This support represents one of the largest international observation efforts 

ever. 

In preparation for the mandated re-run of the election on December 26, we today 

submitted a Congressional Notification of $3 million, as a contingency, to provide 

funding for election-related activities. The CN provides for up to $500,000 for OSCE 

election observers (including a possible central European mission of 100 people 

under ODIHR auspices) and up to $2.5 million to support NGO monitoring and 

other election-related efforts. 

Beginning in February, a wide, bipartisan range of senior U.S. officials and prominent private citizens visited Ukraine carrying a strong message about the importance of a democratic election to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. These included 

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, USAID Administrator Natsios, former President Bush, former Secretaries Albright and Kissinger, 

Dr. Brzezinski, Richard Holbrooke, Thomas Pickering, General (r.) Wesley Clark, 

Rep. Bereuter, Senator McCain, and of course Senator Lugar. The President asked 

Senator Lugar to return in November as his representative to deliver a letter to 

President Kuchma urging a free and fair election and to remain in Ukraine during 

the sensitive period immediately following the voting. He has already reported to 

you on that experience. We are grateful for Senator Lugar’s efforts, and have been 

extremely pleased at how closely the Administration and the Hill have cooperated 

in the run-up to the election in Ukraine. 

As we look back now, we can cite some positive elements of the election campaign. 

There was very little election-related violence, and the military stayed entirely on 

the sidelines. Despite substantial obstacles, the opposition remained viable, active, 

and able to compete. President Kuchma did not seek a third term and, as far as 

we can tell, is prepared to leave office once a successor is legitimately elected. That 

said, we were extremely disappointed with the violations of democratic processes reported throughout the campaign that I described at the beginning of my testimony. 

Russia also openly supported Prime Minister Yanukovych. There were credible reports of Russian financial backing for his candidacy. President Putin visited 

Ukraine twice this fall, just prior to each round of voting, and underscored his support for the Prime Minister. We have discussed repeatedly with Russian officials our 

concern over the conduct of the Ukrainian campaign and elections and the role of 

Russian citizens in that process. We have consistently encouraged the Russian government to join other OSCE member states in organizing common monitoring and 

mediation activities to promote a free and fair election that reflects the will of the 

Ukrainian people. We have urged the Russian government to refrain from any activities that could limit Ukrainians’ ability to choose freely. 

U.S. efforts intensified as the campaign drew to a close. The State Department 

issued a hard-hitting statement in October that got considerable attention in 

Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary published an op-ed in the Financial Times on the 

eve of the first round, and the Department issued another statement after the first 

round vote. The White House issued strong statements of its own just before the 

November 21 election, and both the White House and the Department have spoken 

out repeatedly since the November 21 vote to make it known that we did not recognize the legitimacy of the results of the run-off because of the widespread and credible reports of fraud, and that we expected the will of the Ukrainian people to be 

upheld. The White House issued another statement following the run-off underscoring the ‘‘extensive and credible indications of fraud,’’ ‘‘calling on the Government 

of Ukraine to respect the will of the Ukrainian people,’’ and noting that ‘‘the United 

States stands with the Ukrainian people in this difficult time.’’

33

In addition, the Deputy Secretary spoke to PM Yanukovych and to opposition 

leader Yushchenko last week. The Secretary has been in regular contact with President Kuchma, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Polish President Kwasniewski, EU 

High Representative Solana, and many others since November 21. The President 

has made known his strong support and deep appreciation for the mediation efforts 

of European leaders, which bore fruit in a preliminary agreement last Wednesday. 

We and our NATO and EU allies are united in support of democracy in Ukraine. 

We have reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and 

our rejection of separatist initiatives. We have called on all parties to avoid violence, 

confrontation, and unhelpful rhetoric, and to work constructively towards a peaceful 

and just resolution to the impasse that reflects the will of the Ukrainian people. As 

the President said, our common goal is to see the will of the people prevail in elections that are free of outside interference. It is essential that the voice of the 

Ukrainian people be respected. 

IMPACT ON THE REGION

The crisis in Ukraine remains far from final resolution, so it is difficult to predict 

its long-term impact on other countries in the region. If, in the end, a democratic 

process prevails and there is a result that reflects the will of the Ukrainian people, 

it could have a potentially major impact for the development of democracy in the 

region. It will signal millions of people that democratic freedom is on the ascendance. This will help bolster pro-democracy NGOs, even as authoritarian governments in Belarus, parts of Central Asia, and elsewhere in Eurasia advance crackdowns on pro-democracy civil society groups. We will intensify our efforts to establish balanced cooperation with governments in these regions, recognizing that longterm stability and security arise when people enjoy freedom to participate in the 

civic life of their countries and fundamental human rights. 

Democracy in the countries of the former Soviet Union has lately had its ups and 

downs. In Georgia, a ‘‘rose revolution’’ in 2003 unseated the government of President 

Shevardnadze following a fraudulent parliamentary election, and was followed in 

January 2004 by a presidential election that by and large did adhere to international standards. At the same time, however, there have been disturbing indications of a retreat from democracy in Russia, including flawed elections, greater control of the press, and selective prosecution of powerful business leaders thought to 

pose a threat. Moreover, Moscow has of late become more active in what it regards 

as its ‘‘near-abroad.’’ As I said, the Russians have taken a particularly active role 

in the Ukrainian election, openly throwing their support behind Prime Minister 

Yanukovych. 

The outcome of the presidential election process in Ukraine will have an impact 

well beyond Ukraine’s borders. It is in the interests of everyone to see Ukraine develop into a democratic, market-oriented nation with good relations with all its 

neighbors and with other members of the European and Euro-Atlantic communities. 

LONG-TERM U.S. POLICY

U.S. strategic interests in Ukraine have remained steady for more than a dozen 

years and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. As I said earlier, the U.S. wants to see Ukraine develop as a secure, independent, democratic, and economically prosperous country that increasingly draws 

closer to European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. 

U.S. policies toward Ukraine for the period following the presidential election 

must be properly calibrated to provide an appropriately positive or negative immediate response to the conduct of the election while furthering our long-term strategic 

interests in Ukraine and the region. We want to encourage Ukraine to maintain its 

peacekeeping contingents abroad, including in Iraq, Kosovo, and other peacekeeping 

operations. But we will not allow those deployments to become reasons to excuse 

or ignore democratic shortcomings in Ukraine. 

Our bilateral relationship will obviously be affected by the final outcome of the 

crisis over the presidential election. Isolation of Ukraine is not an option, but, at 

the same time, if the repeat election once again fails to meet democratic standards, 

there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine’s hopes for Euro-Atlantic integration, and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud, including our 

consideration of further use of Presidential Proclamation 7750 to deny visas to individuals engaged in corrupt and anti-democratic activities. We have made clear our 

willingness to respond to an undemocratic electoral process given that failure to do 

so would undercut our credibility with others in the region who also support a Europe whole and free. 

34

As I stressed earlier, we are prepared to work closely with any candidate who 

wins in a free and fair contest that meets international democratic standards. If 

that condition is met, we also are prepared to deepen our relationship and to move 

quickly on a number of issues of importance to Ukraine. These would include intensifying consultations and engagement at the highest political levels, possible upgrading of Ukraine’s relationship with NATO; increased U.S. support for a closer 

relationship between Ukraine and the European Union; increased cooperation in the 

areas of energy, health, education, science, and technology; closer military-to-military links; and increased cooperation to accelerate Ukraine’s bid for accession to 

WTO, provided its government enacts WTO-consistent laws and regulations and addresses our concerns on agriculture and protection of intellectual property. A democratic outcome would also likely spur greater trade and foreign investment. We are 

prepared to work with OPIC, Ex-Im Bank and the Trade and Development Agency 

in order to bolster our economic relationship. Substantial progress on intellectual 

property rights would also allow us to recommend removing existing economic sanctions and restoring Ukraine’s benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences 

(GSP) program. Ukraine has complied with the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik 

Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. In principle, we support Congressional action 

to ‘‘graduate’’ Ukraine from Jackson-Vanik and to grant normal trade relations with 

Ukraine, and we would urge more rapid action on this matter. In other words, a 

Ukrainian government reflecting the will of the Ukrainian people could expect a 

broad and growing, and mutually beneficial, relationship with the United States. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say again that the U.S. wants to see Ukraine 

develop as a secure, independent, democratic, and economically prosperous country 

that increasingly draws closer to European and Euro-Atlantic institutions. A democratic election whose outcome reflects the will of the Ukrainian people would be an 

important step in this direction. This Administration is committed to helping 

Ukraine achieve this goal and looks forward to working closely with whoever wins 

in a free and fair election process. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before your Committee today. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia will submit a statement for the record. 

Mr. Lantos. 

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both my friend 

Congresswoman Kaptur and Ambassador Tefft for their useful testimony. And I think we are all in accord on the basic objectives of 

what we seek. The long-suffering Ukrainian people are entitled at 

long last to be fully independent and to live in a free, open and 

democratic society. I am very pleased that our Government is on 

the right side of this issue, and I am very pleased that our Government is working with the countries of Western Europe to achieve 

these goals. 

I do have an issue which I would like to raise, and it may not 

be the most popular issue to raise at this moment, but I think it 

needs to be raised. As we applaud the heroism, courage and determination of the Ukrainian people to move toward free elections—

and I fully anticipate that the ones on December 26 will be free because the whole world will be watching and the steps will have 

been taken to ensure their fairness—they will provide for a government which reflects the will of the Ukrainian people, or at least the 

majority of the Ukrainian people. The question then becomes, what 

will Ukraine do with its newly-won freedom and democracy and 

independence? And the answer to that question is not yet in. 

It is particularly not yet in, in view of the experience we have 

had in recent years with several major European countries, such as 

Germany and France. It is self-evident to all of us on this panel 

what the United States has done to bring about freedom and deVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
35

mocracy in Germany and France. Tens of thousands of our finest 

young men gave their lives, as the cemeteries on Normandy Beach 

so clearly demonstrate, for the freedom of France. Yet France is totally unwilling to participate in crafting a somewhat more free and 

somewhat more open society in Iraq. Nor is Germany. And I was 

disturbed to note that ‘‘our man in Ukraine,’’ the candidate we 

favor for all the good reasons, Mr. Yushchenko, is recommending 

the withdrawal of the 1,600 Ukrainian troops currently fighting 

side-by-side with our soldiers in that long-suffering country. 

The issue I am raising is a very fundamental issue with respect 

to all of Europe, far transcending Ukraine. Europe is very interested in carving out its own independence and freedom and democracy and prosperity, but it is far less interested than it ought to 

be in bringing similar wonderful developments to other parts of the 

world. It has grown increasingly self-centered and cynical. 

The wave of anti-Americanism that is sweeping Europe has to do 

with much more than the current Administration or the style of the 

current Administration. It reflects a very fundamental cleavage between views in the United States and views in Europe. The European views are profoundly Eurocentric and are far less interested 

in reaching beyond Europe and moving toward the creation of free 

and open societies elsewhere. 

Iran is a good example. The most recent agreement on Iranian 

weapons of mass destruction is singularly flawed, and it is European countries which negotiated it. The appalling scandal of the 

Oil-for-Food Program reflects an avarice on the part of some European countries, which is simply appalling. It would be unreasonable to expect a country that is trying to gain its independence and 

freedom to be ahead of countries such as Germany and France, 

which are enjoying prosperity and freedom and have done so for a 

long period of time. 

But I would be grateful if you would be prepared to comment on 

the issue I raised, because we are all passionately committed to 

Ukrainian freedom, democracy and independence. But that is not 

the ultimate goal in a global context, and countries which are 

democratic, free, open and independent have a responsibility vis-avis other regions of the world where this nirvana has not yet arrived. With your experience in the field, I would be grateful for 

your observations. 

Mr. TEFFT. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. You have raised some very 

important points. Let me respond with regard to Ukraine, which is 

my particular area of responsibility. 

The Ukrainian troops—the almost 1,600 troops that are in Iraq—

have played a very valuable role; all of our military leaders say 

that. We want them very much to stay and we have conveyed that 

message to the Ukrainian Government repeatedly. I was in 

Ukraine in September and I met with Prime Minister Yanukovych 

just after he had come back from his visit to Iraq, after his visit 

with the troops. He made it very clear to me that he wanted to 

keep the troops there. He also was trying, during a Presidential 

election campaign, to deal with popular sentiment, much of it opposed to keeping Ukrainian troops there. 

You are correct, Mr. Yushchenko has also talked about withdrawing Ukrainian troops. Our Ambassador has had several conVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
36

versations with him about that, and it is our understanding that 

whoever is elected, there will be serious consultation between us, 

and not an abrupt withdrawal of those troops. We will continue to 

urge them to stay and continue to play the important role that they 

have done. 

I agree with you completely that Ukraine will have to play an 

important role in broader global issues. As its focus is now on its 

democratic election campaign, it is a country of 50 million people. 

It is a country with enormous resources with military capability. 

And we believe that is important, to marshal that capability toward peacekeeping activities and others. 

In my longer, prepared statement, I have laid out a number of 

specific areas where, if we have a fair and free election on the 26th 

of December, we could move. And this would include closer integration of Ukraine in NATO and other structures to work together on 

better military-to-military cooperation, to work with Ukraine more 

broadly on that type of global role you are talking about. This is 

very much on our minds and will be part of our agenda with 

Ukraine after the election. And again, we are very hopeful that we 

will have the possibility to work with them and take advantage of 

what they bring to the table. 

Mr. LANTOS. I am very pleased with your answer because we 

have recent historic examples of profound disappointments that we 

have had to endure along these lines. The majority of this Committee, under the Chairman’s leadership, was strongly in favor of 

NATO membership for Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, 

and subsequently of Estonia and Latvia; and we are delighted that 

these countries have achieved that status. I very much hope that 

at the appropriate time, Ukraine will as well. But I think it is important to understand, for both the leadership and the people of 

these countries, that NATO membership, which is a dream come 

true, is a protective military umbrella for the first time in the history of these countries, which guarantees collective response vis-avis any hostile action. 

It also entails some responsibilities, and many of these countries 

have been very eager to obtain the benefits of NATO membership, 

but are singularly disinterested in assuming the responsibilities of 

NATO membership. And I very much hope that from the earliest 

times on, which is now in our dealings with the new Ukrainian 

leadership, we need to underscore the duality of our interests: One, 

our passionate commitment to their free democratic and independent existence; and two, the expectation that they will accept 

their responsibilities of democratic, free and independent nations in 

a global context. 

I thank you for your answer. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. Ambassador, do you or does the State Department 

have any assessment of President Putin’s role in all of this? Has 

he overstepped himself? 

Is a threat of a split in Ukrainian society real? If the threat is 

real, is it a movement toward two States or reintegration of part 

of one State with Russia? 

And then, finally, it is my sense that there are true cultural divisions based on language in the Ukraine, but the political cohesion 

37

is pretty powerful and that this is kind of an outside political 

threat. Is that your impression, or is it the type of thing we ought 

to be worried about? 

Mr. TEFFT. I don’t understand your last point. 

Mr. LEACH. My sense is, there is kind of a hanging political 

threat used by few people in politics outside and a couple within 

Ukraine, but from a public point of view, it doesn’t hold a lot of 

sway. Is that valid or is this division something that we saw an example of with Czechoslovakia, for example? 

Mr. TEFFT. We very much oppose any attempt or any urging of 

separatism in Ukraine. We were very happy the morning after this 

conference in Severodonetsk a week ago Sunday where a lot of separatist talk was mounted. We are happy that President Kuchma 

called the governors who had attended this conference to his office 

in Kiev and made it clear to them and made a public statement 

strongly opposing any kind of separatism or any kind of division of 

Ukraine. 

There is no question that there are broad historical and cultural 

differences between East and West, but we believe any solution in 

Ukraine has to be based on territorial integrity. We were encouraged that the Russian Government from President Putin on down 

came to that same public conclusion. 

The day after the conference at Severodonetsk, Assistant Secretary Beth Jones, my boss, asked the Russian Ambassador to 

come in and for his clarification. He and other Russian officials assured us that Russia stood for territorial integrity of Ukraine and 

did not favor separatist remarks. President Putin made that point 

subsequently. 

Ukraine has had a remarkable economic recovery over the last 

year, one of the highest growth rates in Europe. It is important for 

its future that the economic vitality of that country be maintained, 

and territorial integrity and political stability are critical to that, 

so we will continue to push in that direction. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Before I ask my questions, just a comment on my good 

friend, Congresswoman Kaptur. 

She and I had the pleasure of traveling together to Ukraine. I 

have been to Ukraine on two occasions. One time when we were 

stuck in Moldova and told there was no way we could go to 

Ukraine, Marcy and I ‘‘hijacked’’ a car and drove into Ukraine to 

observe firsthand what was going on. And I am just proud to be 

one of the people who signed the document that she had spoken 

about in 1999 with the joint Congress and Rada. And thank you, 

Marcy, for all the good work you do. 

Mr. Ambassador, I am concerned about the elections, and I would 

like to ask you a few questions about the monitoring of the elections. Obviously, we monitored the elections in the recent fraudulent election. Are our plans for monitoring the elections for this 

runoff similar to what we had? How many monitors are we planning to send? What is Russia planning on doing in terms of sending 

monitors? I would like to ask you about that. 

38

And also, there has been some talk about how elections would affect different minorities in Ukraine. I am wondering if you have 

any comment on that. 

You mentioned that Mr. Kuchma had talked about any type of 

breakup, and I am wondering if you could give us your assessment 

of the role he has played. I have met with him on a number of occasions both in Ukraine and in Washington. He has always professed 

to me a desire to work with the United States, and that is why it 

was very interesting for me to notice that the press has played this 

as an East-versus-West-type thing with Mr. Kuchma and his handpicked candidate leaning toward Russia, and the reformers leaning 

toward the West. But in all the private conversations that Mr. 

Kuchma has had with me, he professes just the opposite. So I wonder if you could comment on that as well. 

Mr. TEFFT. With regard to the election observers, we are trying 

very hard to fund, with Congress’ approval, and field as many, if 

not more, observers for the December 26 round as we had the last 

time. We believe that the last round was successful. We were able 

to document—the OSCE and American observers were able to document the fraud and abuse we have talked about today at this 

hearing. 

My understanding is that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is shooting for a number of 960 observers for 

this next round. We will pay, if the appropriation is agreed, for 100 

of these. We will pay for 100 in the Visegrad Four countries. In addition, it is our intention to reconstitute the 1,000 nongovernmental 

observers from the International Republican Institute, from Freedom House, National Democratic Institute and others who comprise the European network of election-monitoring organizations. 

These all will work with the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, the 

10,000 observers who were participating the last time, which we 

very much expect will be there this time. 

My understanding is that the OSCE, today at its ministerial 

meeting in Sofia, has approved the deployment at the invitation of 

the Ukrainian Government of these people. We are going to have 

a robust and, again, hopefully successful monitoring mission. 

With regard to minorities, clearly, as I responded to Mr. Leach, 

the question of the minorities, the cultural, historical divisions in 

this country are serious. We believe, however, that Ukraine should 

be a unified country, that it can manage, that it can incorporate 

the different minorities in a multiethnic society that will be very, 

very successful. This is a challenge for whoever will be the next 

President. There are a lot of issues out there that will have to be 

addressed. 

With regard to President Kuchma, Senator Lugar mentioned, 

and I mentioned in my remarks, the many officials who went to see 

President Kuchma, who urged a free, fair and transparent election. 

Sadly, the election was not free and fair, and there was some complicity by the Government of Ukraine. 

We are continuing to urge President Kuchma—Secretary Powell 

has spoken to him—that the next round, the rerun of the election, 

has to be free and fair; and that we look to him personally to continue to make sure that there is not fraud again this time. And I 

39

am sure that will be a theme over the next couple of weeks as we 

approach the runoff election. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Paul. 

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, you have stated that you do not favor a specific 

candidate and that, of course, is the position of our Government. 

And the same thing was also stated by Senator Lugar, and the 

President has been very clear on this. Any election, if there is one, 

ought to be free from any foreign influence, which I think sounds 

like a pretty good idea. 

It is illegal for other countries to interfere in our election. At 

least it is good policy not to pick a candidate. And yet I have come 

across some evidence to show that U.S. taxpayers’ dollars may have 

supported one candidate over another. 

You talk about more funding for the NGOs, and this is for monitoring elections, and I understand that; but there are other 

fundings that I am concerned about. For instance, we know that 

USAID sends millions of dollars to a group called the Poland-American-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative, which is administered by 

Freedom House. And Freedom House then distributes many, many 

dollars to many Ukrainian NGOs. And if you study their Web 

pages, you find out that they are not nonpartisan at all, but very 

partisan. 

On one, for instance, the International Center for Policy Studies 

has one of the candidates on the advisory board and there is a connection to his political Web site. There are several that I have here 

where you see money going from USAID to Freedom House to the 

NGOs who are absolutely connected to a particular candidate. I 

think it is a real stretch to say that U.S. taxpayers’ dollars have 

not supported a particular candidate, and I am just wondering 

whether you think that is possible, or why this would exist, and if 

there is a question, whether or not you would support an effort on 

my part or somebody else’s to look at this and try to trace this 

money through these various organizations to find out if the American taxpayers’ dollars were used for a specific candidate in contradiction to our stated policy. Because I would think, quite possibly, the GAO could do a report for us and tell us this. 

Could you comment on this? Is there any chance that our taxpayers’ dollars have been used for a particular candidate? 

Mr. TEFFT. I am not familiar with those particular programs, and 

I will be happy to look at that and get back to you. We have tried, 

as a government policy, to not support a particular candidate. I 

know that some of the larger programs, for example, the National 

Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, do 

training programs. Those programs are open to anyone who wants 

to participate. These are political training programs in terms of 

how to do political parties and all of the things that go with politics. 

The fact that some people in Ukraine, as in other countries, 

choose to participate in some parties and others, not, is something 

that is their choice. It is not something that we are trying to exclude or to include anyone in particular. 

With regard to those Web sites, I would have to take a look at 

that and get back to you, sir. 

40

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your testimony. What would be 

the likely consequences in terms of United States and Ukraine relations if an election takes place that is tainted by widespread 

fraud? What would be the consequences as far as our relations, in 

your opinion? And are there rewards or punishments that we 

should employ? 

What are our principal interests in Ukraine? How would these 

be affected by a fraudulent election? 

Mr. TEFFT. Thank you. 

We believe that we have a long-term strategic interest in 

Ukraine. Our concern is that if the elections are not fair, we would 

have to indicate our displeasure with what had happened, clearly. 

At the same time, we are not going to try to undermine overall 

strategic relationships with Ukraine. It is very much our hope that 

the elections will be free and fair on the 26th of December, because, 

as I have laid out in my formal statement, the long statement, 

there are many, many things that we can do with Ukraine. That 

is certainly the direction we want to go. I hope we don’t have a situation where there is fraud again. 

I think the Ukrainian people are certainly sensitized to what has 

happened. Many Ukrainians who are not particularly partisan, or 

supporters of one particular party or another, have now endorsed 

the larger issue of having free and fair elections. They want that 

for their country, and that is very much our hope. 

Mr. PITTS. What, in your opinion, would the foreign policy of 

Ukraine look like? How would it differ between the two candidates? 

Mr. TEFFT. I think that part of what is at stake here is the question of integration into Western institutions. I think that came up 

during the course of the discussion. Both candidates said that they 

wanted to have very good relationships with the United States and 

with Europe. I think we would have to take a hard look afterwards 

to see whoever was elected—to see how this actually was implemented, what the specific foreign policies were. 

Certainly, it is the policy of the European Union and the United 

States to try to remain as engaged, for all the reasons I described, 

with Ukraine after these elections. We hope it will become increasingly integrated into the Western community of nations and a 

democratic, successful, market-oriented economy. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. McCotter. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I just would like to flip Mr. Pitts’ question in the 

sense of, What do you believe the consequences are of the outcome 

of this election to Russia and what are its strategic, long-term interests? And what are the potential consequences to Ukraine if 

Moscow does not like the outcome of the election? 

Mr. TEFFT. I think it is clear that President Putin invested a 

great deal of personal interest in this campaign. I leave to other 

analysts the evaluation of his success. 

We were encouraged the other day when we saw that President 

Putin said publicly, whoever wins, he will work with the head of 

the Government of Ukraine. Secretary Powell, this morning in 

Sofia, Bulgaria, was asked about the criticism that Russia had levVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
41

eled, that somehow we were playing sphere-of-influence politics. I 

think you could look at it the other way. 

But I think the fundamental point that the Secretary made—and 

I would like to read the quote—is exactly the right one today as 

we look at Ukraine and we look at Europe. He said:

‘‘I think the term ‘sphere of influence’ is really not relevant to 

the circumstances we face today. If you look at the situation 

in Georgia, the United States isn’t interested in sphere of influence.’’

He goes on to say,

‘‘In general, while we are engaged with all of these countries, 

there doesn’t need to be an East-West division. There is no 

need for the concepts to be in conflict. You can have friends in 

the East and the West.’’

It isn’t a matter of sphere of influence. It is a matter of allowing 

a country to choose how it is to be governed and who it wishes to 

have as its friends. I think that is very much the American point 

of view. We don’t buy the idea of spheres of influence in 20th century Europe. The European Union feels very much the same way 

about that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [presiding]. Mr. Weller. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ambassador, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I came here from another 

meeting, so I missed some of your testimony. 

If I have some time remaining, Mr. McCotter, I will yield you 

some time. I have a couple of quick questions. 

I have had the opportunity, as a candidate, to participate in elections, but I have also observed elections—the Palestinian elections 

in 1996 and others, and recently in Venezuela for the referenda 

there. The international community—the United States—has expressed concerns over the conduct of the elections, the appearances 

of impropriety. 

Who do you see as playing a key role in ensuring that this special runoff election is conducted properly? Who do you see playing 

a key role? And what are the steps necessary that need to be taken 

to ensure that from the international standpoint these elections are 

conducted in a fair and transparent manner? 

Mr. TEFFT. Thank you. 

We very much support the efforts of the European Union. President Kwasniewski of Poland, President Adamkus of Lithuania, EU 

Special Representative Solana, who had been to Kiev a second 

time, to try to work out the actual modalities to get the deal that 

will allow the rerun of the elections to be done freely and fairly. 

I think the EU’s mediation has been critical to helping this very 

polarized society come to grips with what has happened, the fraud 

that has happened, you mentioned, but then to work out specifics 

so we can do this right the next time. 

The word I have just gotten is that part of the Parliament of 

Ukraine has adjourned for the day. We were hoping they would 

come to agreement for new rules for the election, a new election 

commission, which are fundamental to make sure that the integrity 

of the next round is correct. There are a lot of issues being disVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
42

cussed there. Hopefully, they will come to an agreement on this 

very soon. Those are the key things. 

I mentioned in my testimony a number of problems we had the 

last time. The legislation that is pending before the Rada today will 

deal with a number of those things. It will deal with the absentee 

ballot issue, as I understand it, and other issues that were the 

cause of the fraud. 

Mr. WELLER. Which international organizations, besides the role 

of the European Union, do you see playing a key role in ensuring 

that the election is perceived and is actually a fair election? What 

do you see are the key groups that can play a role in ensuring that 

the election is credible? 

Mr. TEFFT. In addition to the two Presidents and Mr. Solana and 

Mr. Kubis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, who have been at the table for the roundtable discussions, 

Mr. Gryzlov, the Russian Duma speaker, has participated in some 

of these sessions. There are many NGO groups. Particularly the 

ODIHR—the branch of the OSCE that does the monitoring and the 

observation of elections—played a critical role, I think, in uncovering the fraud the last time; and when they went public with their 

assessment, it was vital, I think, to mobilizing world opinion, to 

educating world public opinion, to seeing the problems that had occurred and to putting them right out in the open so that ultimately 

the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out the election because of the 

blatant fraud. 

All of those organizations are going to be involved in this rerun, 

the second round of the election, as well as the NGOs in our own 

country and Europe who have been very active participants. 

Mr. WELLER. You mentioned in your testimony and in your answer to my first question the standards essentially that the international community would look to see whether they are met during 

the election process. The Ukrainian Parliament, you said, adjourned for the day without resolving the issue. But I presume that 

is legislation that is before them. Is there anything that is lacking 

in that legislation that you believe should be included that is currently not included from the standpoint of setting up the election 

process? And who is going to administer it? 

Mr. TEFFT. I don’t have the text, but it is a fluid document. It 

incorporates the changes that the opposition has urged and it has 

been put together under the auspices of Mr. Lytvyn, the speaker 

of the Parliament, who has played a critical role in this process. 

Senator Lugar invited him to come to the States before the second 

round, and he came and had meetings not only on the Hill, but 

with Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell, where he explained his approach to this. That was a very good visit, and the role he has been 

playing, I think, since the fraudulent elections has been critical. I 

am confident that if the suggestions that he, as well as the opposition, wants are included in this law, that it will go a long way in 

making sure that on December 26, we see a free and fair election. 

Mr. WELLER. If there is any time, I yield to my friend from 

Michigan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The Chair apologizes to Mr. McCotter. As we 

were in the middle of shifting the Chairman’s gavel here I inadVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
43

vertently curtailed Mr. McCotter’s time, and you may ask as many 

questions as you would like. I apologize for cutting you off. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. I appreciate your courtesy and your discretion. 

Just to continue, the thrust of my question in terms of Russia, 

because Russia is in the post-Chechen terror attacks and a lot of 

the NATO isolation that they feel internally, what types of tools do 

they have to pressure Ukraine both now and in the future, given 

the larger picture that they want to be friendly to them? I think 

they have a desire, as we have seen in their own global war on terror, to be able to strike preemptively, and that has to be favorable 

to Moscow. 

What constitutes friendliness? Was it an economic agreement? Is 

it the single economic space that they have entered into? What is 

Russia expecting of these countries like Ukraine? And what are we 

prepared to do about it to meet their strategic expectations? I am 

not quite sure we know what Russia’s long-term strategic expectations of these countries are, let alone protect them from the consequences of failing in them. 

Mr. TEFFT. It is a difficult question to answer in a short time. 

I think that Russia—the Russian leadership—sees Ukraine in its 

sphere of influence. It is kind of a zero-sum-game kind of approach. 

The criticism that Russia has leveled toward the Administration is 

that we are somehow interfering and trying to make Ukraine part 

of our own sphere of influence, and the statement that I read, that 

the Secretary made this morning, I think is a very clear rebuttal 

to that. 

With regard to the methods that they might use, clearly there 

are reports that the Russians invested heavily in Mr. Yanukovych’s 

campaign. In contrast to us, where we supported a process, they 

supported a specific candidate. The results of that election were 

flawed, as we have seen, and the Ukrainian people have objected 

to that quite clearly. I am not sure they have understood this in 

Moscow; I hope they have. 

Again, President Putin has said he will work with whomever is 

the head of Ukraine. There are long-term and substantial economic 

ties. There are energy ties. But we hope that Russia will work with 

Ukraine, and we want Ukraine to be a good friend of Russia, too. 

There is no reason why it can’t be a win-win situation. It doesn’t 

have to be a zero-sum-game approach, as I think many people in 

Moscow seem to think it is. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Let me note—and I apologize for being here a bit late—we have 

a major piece of legislation about to come onto the Floor, and there 

was a much heated discussion about that legislation that I was 

part of and had to participate in. 

But thank you very much. Let me first and foremost commend 

the State Department and yourself for the strong stand that has 

been taken on behalf of the people of the United States concerning 

free and fair elections in Ukraine. It doesn’t always happen, and 

in the past I have been dismayed when there has been a lack of, 

let us say, commitment on the part of our Government toward the 

success of people in other countries who are struggling simply to 

have a democratic process as the basis of choosing their leadership. 

44

And today, and over this last election we have seen in Ukraine, you 

and the State Department and our Government have done well by 

the ideals of the people of the United States. 

Clearly, the people of the United States of America are with the 

people of Ukraine in demanding free and fair elections. What is of 

concern to us, when it comes to choosing a leader of Ukraine, is 

that the people of Ukraine and their rights are respected and not 

some of the sensibilities of some of the leadership in Moscow or any 

other country. But then again, I think you have also made some 

good points that there is no reason for Mr. Putin or anyone else 

in Russia to think that a free and democratic Ukraine is anything 

else but in their interest. The bottomline is, what is in the interest 

of the United States, what is in the interest of Russia, is respect 

for the democratic process; and in the end, if Ukraine has a free 

and democratic election, it will strengthen the commitment to 

democratic elections in Russia and elsewhere. 

So let us note that there is, let us say, a unified team behind this 

concept of free and fair elections. We have Europe which, as you 

have explained, is standing with the United States. Europeans 

don’t always do that. In the United States we have Democrats and 

Republicans who are standing together strongly on this issue. That 

doesn’t always happen. So if there is any message that has come 

out of these hearings today it is that we were watching closely, we 

are committed to a democratic process that is run freely and fairly 

in Ukraine and that there will be—and I understand you have 

made some statements earlier—that there will be serious repercussions if certain elements in Ukraine try to compromise the integrity 

of that election, as we have seen some evidence that that was compromised in the election that has already taken place, and that is 

the reason why they have to have another vote. 

I introduced H.R. 5247 last year—excuse me, earlier this year, 

and it really outlines some very serious repercussions for any group 

of individuals who think they can game the system in Ukraine and 

make a mockery of the democratic process by taking power or continuing to hold power by the manipulation of the elections and by 

undermining the integrity of the elections. This bill will be reintroduced next year, and I can guarantee you, it will have bipartisan 

support to give penalty to those people who undermine the integrity of those free elections in Ukraine. 

So I believe that this is a turning point. I worked with Ronald 

Reagan in the White House. I was one of his speechwriters who 

helped him develop the concept of the Reagan Doctrine. That was 

a doctrine that we relied on, confronting military force with expansion of Soviet military power and our support for those people who 

were defending their own freedom with arms in various parts of 

the world. 

Today, the Cold War is over, and it is up to us to stand unified 

with those people, as they have in the Ukraine, who are peacefully 

demanding that they have the right to choose their own leaders. I 

don’t know what kind of doctrine it is going to be called, but there 

is a doctrine emerging in the post-Cold War world of this type of 

unity among free people to stand with people in every country, as 

they have in this democratic process, and make sure that the 

democratic process has integrity. 

45

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and thank you for the great job you 

are doing and for standing true to American principles. 

And I would now ask unanimous consent that additional statements by Mr. Smith, Mr. Burton and myself be made a part of the 

record. And without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and the other witnesses for your testimony. I am sure that the message is loud and 

clear to anyone who would compromise the integrity of the democratic process in Ukraine that we mean business. There will be no 

crime against democracy committed in Ukraine that will not have 

serious consequences by those committing that crime. 

So, with that, I would thank Mr. Hyde for his leadership. Chairman Hyde throughout this election process in Ukraine has taken 

a special interest in this, as I think he should, because it is very 

symbolic what is happening there. 

I now declare the Committee adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. LEACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND

THE PACIFIC

Mr. Chairman, history unfolds at an unpredictable pace. While we’ve been preoccupied with Iraq and our own elections at home, dramatic events have shaken 

Ukraine for the past fortnight. They must not be overlooked or their implications 

misunderstood. 

Once again in the former Soviet empire, we are witnessing the courage of the 

human soul and the lengths to which oppressed people will go to seize freedom. 

In Ukraine, a country besieged in the last century by two of mankind’s greatest 

‘isms’ of hate—fascism and communism—a populace has risen against another kind 

of ‘ism’-‘‘corruptionism.’’ We are now witness to the power of the individual standing 

up against forces of injustice and oppression. We are also witness to the continuing 

saga of a people aspiring to shape its own destiny, clear of the shadows cast for centuries by powerful neighbors. 

At issue is the question of freedom and its transforming effects. Democracy implies more than elections. It implies integrity of process, and when that integrity 

is lacking, the charade of stolen elections can be more debilitating than unabashed 

authoritarian rule. 

There are geostrategic as well as philosophical dimensions to the Ukraine situation that need to be understood in the broad context of the region and its history. 

Geopolitically, Ukraine is a large expanse about the size of Texas, with a population of nearly 48 million people, stretching from the wheat fields along a line between Warsaw and Moscow to the palm trees of Yalta, on the Black Sea. The 

Ukraine was the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union; today, it is an economic and 

political hinge between the European Union and NATO on the one hand, and the 

Russian Federation and the Asian landmass, on the other. The western, Ukrainianspeaking half of the country looks to Warsaw and Berlin, Paris and Washington; 

eastern Ukraine, with its Russian-speaking population, looks more to Moscow. Language creates cultural divisions, but the forces of political cohesion are strong. Both 

population groups are committed to independence and undiluted Ukrainian sovereignty. 

So, in addition to democracy, at issue is Russian imperialism. Instability in 

Ukraine can only strengthen the hand of an increasingly authoritarian Kremlin. By 

contrast, a genuinely free election in Ukraine would not only enhance national solidarity but encourage democratic forces in the rest of the former Soviet Union, not 

the least, within Russia itself. 

Those committed to democracy anywhere in the world should not hesitate to identify with aspirations of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine may be on the distant side 

of Europe from the United States, but our countries are bound by a common heritage and an inalienable urge for freedom. As Taras Shevchenko, the 19th century 

Ukrainian poet, wrote: ‘‘It makes no difference to me / If I shall live or not in 

Ukraine / Or whether any one shall think / Of me mid’ foreign snow and rain / It 

makes no difference to me . . . It makes great difference to me / That evil folk and 

wicked men / Attack our Ukraine, once so free / And rob and plunder at will / That 

makes great difference to me.’’

So far courageous Ukrainians have succeeded in halting a fraudulent election. 

Sensing political winds blowing from a new direction, the once docile Supreme Court 

has, startlingly, done an honest job, erasing an injustice and calling for a new election. But the outcome is still in doubt. There is plenty of opportunity before the 

court-ordered runoff for status quo authorities to attempt, once more, to subvert the 

48

democratic process. There can be little doubt they will try to do so. For the KGB 

alumni who dominate the Kremlin, Ukrainian democracy is more than an embarrassment. It is a threat to their power and wealth and, for some, to their dream 

of restoring the Russian empire. 

No one wishes to poison relations with Russia, but free elections are not an issue 

on which the United States should or, indeed, can compromise without sullying its 

principles. Nor need we respect the threat of those who are so fearful of losing 

power that they hint of promoting a division of Ukraine into western and eastern 

parts. Separatism misserves the Ukrainian people. It is a trend that Russia, grappling with Chechnya and other non-Russian regions, can only endorse at great risk. 

Differing with Russia may be politically awkward, but once the flame of freedom 

is ignited, the United States and other western democracies have no ethical choice 

except to stand up in support of the people of Ukraine. The march to freedom in 

Poland, Czechoslovakia and other former communist-bloc countries has shown that 

the risk of an outbreak of destabilizing violence is far greater in situations where 

the popular will is suppressed than in those where it is allowed to find full expression. 

The Ukrainian election set for December 26th is one of the seminal events of this 

new century. As members of the American people’s House, we are obligated to express our support for the aspirations of Ukrainians. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

As Chairwoman of the Europe Subcommittee, I welcome this hearing which will 

review the circumstances surrounding the recent Presidential election held in 

Ukraine. We also hope to assess the current political situation in that country and 

why Ukraine’s future should be of interest to the United States. 

Ukraine is viewed by many as an important element in the long-term stability 

of Europe. A weak or unstable Ukraine, or one which is shunned by the West, could 

result in a Ukraine once again under the domination of Russia. Ukraine’s transition 

to democracy over the past 13 years has been slow and difficult. However, no issue 

will be more important to Ukraine’s future standing with the West than the 

strength of its democracy. 

Five months ago, the Europe Subcommittee held a hearing on the future of 

Ukraine. All of the witnesses who testified agreed that the single most important 

event for Ukraine was the successful conduct of their upcoming Presidential election. The Congress, like the Bush Administration, had made the Presidential election a litmus test of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. Several high level delegations from the Administration and the Congress visited Kiev in order to stress to 

the government the importance of free and fair elections. On every occasion these 

delegations were assured by the government in Kiev from the President on down 

that all election laws would be enforced and that the elections would be truly democratic. 

Unfortunately, the rhetoric did not meet the actions. Both rounds of the election 

were marred by serious irregularities but the highly-charged second round vote on 

November 21 met all of our worse expectations. We all have read the media accounts of the election-day problems so I will not repeat them here. Suffice it to say 

that the election itself fell significantly short of acceptable standards for democratic 

elections. Since it was the primary responsibility of the government to ensure the 

integrity of the vote, it must be the government which bears the brunt of the criticism. We knew from the beginning that the government and the electoral committees were capable of conducting good elections. Regrettably, they seemed to have 

lacked the will to do so. Hopefully, they learned an important lesson. 

In the aftermath of this contested election, an extraordinary series of events have 

taken place in Ukraine which have given us a glimmer of hope that Ukraine’s democracy may have survived the effects of the election abuses and may have given 

it new life. 

The outpouring of public opposition to the faulty election process has been beyond 

expectation. To their credit the people of Ukraine have spoken with determination 

that the will of the people will not be thwarted by those who are unable or unwilling 

to relinquish power. 

The demonstrators themselves should be commended for their strong commitment 

to the democratic process even in the face of personal hardship. Their restraint and 

rejection of violence was noteworthy. Similarly, the police, the military and other 

security forces should be commended for their restraint as well. 

49

Beyond the popular uprising, it has also been impressive to see Ukrainian institutions such as the Parliament and the Supreme Court affirm their commitment to 

the rule of law and to take their responsibilities seriously in order to resolve this 

political crisis. 

We welcome the new openness of the electronic media in providing coverage of 

the crisis and the initiative of many of Ukraine’s journalists to resist biased reporting. We hope that the same approach will prevail during the new election period. 

Similarly, it appeared that even government officials and their supporters recognized that they were caught with their hands ‘‘too far into the cookie jar’’ and realized they needed to find an acceptable way out of their self-inflicted crisis. 

Finally, I believe it is worth mentioning the leading effort being made by the European Union, Poland, Lithuania and joined by the United States to help broker a 

fair solution to the crisis. This is a perfect example of how the transatlantic partnership is working. 

On the other hand, we have been disappointed in Russia’s actions throughout the 

entire campaign and question their motives. What has been going on in Ukraine 

over the past two weeks is not an ‘‘east versus west’’ struggle as some would make 

it out to be. Regardless of who eventually leads Ukraine the new government must 

have internal stability and a positive working relationship with both its neighbors 

to the east as well as to the west. In that context, therefore, the territorial integrity 

of Ukraine must be preserved and we reject any idea of splitting the country into 

two. 

Rather than an external geopolitical struggle, events taking place in Ukraine are 

all about democracy; of freedom; of real rather than declared rights as we heard Mr. 

Yushchenko explain, and of the right of the people to freely and fairly choose their 

leaders. The past two weeks have been all about Ukraine’s future and its rightful 

place in the international community of democratic nations. 

The United States Congress attaches great importance to the success of Ukraine’s 

continued transition to a democratic state, with strong institutions, and a flourishing market economy. U.S. government policy must remain focused on promoting 

and strengthening a stable, democratic, and prosperous Ukraine, more closely integrated into European and Euro-Atlantic structures but at peace with its neighbors. 

The recent election was truly disappointing. The post-election period has given us 

hope. The new election scheduled in just a few short weeks may finally usher in 

the beginning of that new era for Ukraine for which we all been waiting for. 

I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing and look forward to hearing the 

views of our witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman: President Bush said last week that, ‘‘Any election (in Ukraine), if 

there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence.’’ I agree with the President 

wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it seems that several U.S. government agencies saw 

things differently and sent U.S. taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in attempt to influence the outcome. 

We do not know exactly how many millions—or tens of millions—of dollars the 

United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do 

know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and 

that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—both 

American and Ukrainian—millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential 

candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. 

Let me add that I do not think we should be supporting either of the candidates. 

While I am certainly no supporter of Viktor Yushchenko, I am not a supporter of 

his opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, either. Simply, it is none of our business who the 

Ukrainian people select to be their president. And, if they feel the vote was not fair, 

it is up to them to work it out. 

How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we 

may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know thus far is 

that the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation 

Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House. 

PAUCI then sent U.S. Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse 

is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of 

presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko. 

50

Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Centre for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the U.S. Government through PAUCI, but on its website you 

will find that the front page in the English section features a prominent orange ribbon, the symbol of Yushchenko’s party and movement. Reading further on, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board! 

And this NGO is not the only one the U.S. government funds that is openly supportive of Viktor Yushchenko. The Western Ukraine Regional Training Center, as 

another example, features a prominent USAID logo on one side of its website’s front 

page and an orange ribbon of the candidate Yushchenko’s party and movement on 

the other. By their proximity, the message to Ukrainian readers is clear: the U.S. 

government supports Yushchenko. 

The Center for Political and Law Reforms, another Ukrainian NGO funded by the 

U.S. government, features a link at the top of its website’s front page to Viktor 

Yushchenko’s personal website. Yushchenko’s picture is at the top of this US government funded website. 

This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the US government ‘‘for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide.’’ According to the organization’s website, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the 

elections. 

As I have said, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. There may be many more 

such organizations involved in this twisted tale. 

It is clear that a significant amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars went to support one 

candidate in Ukraine. Recall how most of us felt when it became known that the 

Chinese government was trying to funnel campaign funding to a U.S. presidential 

campaign. This foreign funding of American elections is rightly illegal. Yet, it appears that that is exactly what we are doing abroad. What we do not know, however, is just how much U.S. government money was spent to influence the outcome 

of the Ukrainian election. 

Dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program alone, and 

this is only one of many programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine. We do not 

know how many millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sent to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic Institute and 

International Republican Institute. Nor do we know how many other efforts, overt 

or covert, have been made to support one candidate over the other in Ukraine. 

That is what I find so disturbing: there are so many cut-out organizations and 

sub-grantees that we have no idea how much U.S. government money was really 

spent on Ukraine, and most importantly how it was spent. Perhaps the several examples of blatant partisan support that we have been able to uncover are but an 

anomaly. I believe Congress and the American taxpayers have a right to know. I 

believe we urgently need an investigation by the Government Accounting Office into 

how much U.S. government money was spent in Ukraine and exactly how it was 

spent. I would hope very much for the support of Chairman Hyde, Chairman Lugar, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Tefft, and my colleagues on the Committee in this request. 

President Bush is absolutely correct: elections in Ukraine should be free of foreign 

influence. It is our job here and now to discover just how far we have violated this 

very important principle, and to cease any funding of political candidates or campaigns henceforth. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for convening this extremely timely and important 

hearing on developments in Ukraine. I was pleased to have worked with you on H. 

Con. Res. 415, a resolution urging the Ukrainian Government to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process in Ukraine which passed the House 

unanimously in early October. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have closely monitored developments in Ukraine and have 

chaired hearings on that strategically important country. Over the past year I have 

repeatedly spoken out and tried to highlight concerns about the election process and 

state of democracy in Ukraine. Regrettably, though not surprisingly, the Ukrainian 

authorities—including President Kuchma—largely ignored our calls and those of the 

international community to hold free and fair elections. 

51

It was, and continues to be, essential to demonstrate that the United States is 

keeping the faith with the Ukrainian people in their struggle for democracy, human 

rights and human dignity. And it is absolutely vital that we support their historic 

struggle at this critical juncture and into the future. 

Helsinki Commission staff who served as OSCE observers in central Ukraine for 

the November 21st run-off elections witnessed flagrant violations as did many other 

international and domestic observers. The OSCE pronounced the elections as not 

meeting ‘‘a considerable number of OSCE commitments’’ with British MP Bruce 

George underscoring that violations during the run-off were even worse than those 

observed in the first round. Importantly, the Ukrainian people have made clear that 

they will not accept elections that by all credible accounts were fraught with fraud 

and falsification. 

What we are witnessing today in Ukraine is a historic, momentous, peaceful ‘‘orange’’ revolution. The Ukrainian people and many institutions of government, including the Supreme Court, with its momentous decision invalidating the November 

21 run-off and ordering a new one for December 26, have demonstrated that they 

will stand up firmly, decisively and peacefully to assaults on their democratic rights 

whether from within Ukraine or beyond. 

Much has been said about the geo-political implications of these elections and the 

peaceful ‘‘orange’’ revolution. Indeed, the implications are tremendous, for the U.S. 

and Europe, and for Russia, Belarus and other not-so-newly independent states. 

Russian President Putin’s repeated, heavy-handed personal involvement shows that 

he understands what is at stake. It is not only about Ukraine’s resistance to Russian encroachment on its independence and neo-imperial ambitions in the region, 

but it is also about Ukraine’s serving as a model for Russians, Bearusians and other 

peoples’ legitimate aspirations for freedom and democracy. The Putins and 

Lukashenkas of the world well know that the events in Ukraine will have lasting 

consequences elsewhere. 

For the Ukrainian people, this peaceful revolution is primarily about the desire 

to confront corruption, break with the status quo, and live in a truly free and independent country where democratic norms, including the rule of law, prevail. 

Those who have peacefully taken to the streets; the courageous journalists who 

have said no to state censorship; the members of the military and security services 

who have renounced the use of force against the people; the Ukrainian diplomats 

here in Washington and around the world who are standing with their countrymen; 

and the millions resisting intimidation—deserve our admiration and moral support 

in their struggle for truth, freedom and justice. 

Mr. Chairman, the fate of Ukraine rightly belongs in the hands of the Ukrainian 

people, period. Independent Ukraine need not look elsewhere for the way ahead. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. Chairman: 

Since the fall of the former Soviet Union over 13 years ago, the United States has 

been keenly aware of the economic importance and geo-political significance of Europe’s second-largest country, Ukraine. Situated between Poland, Romania and 

Moldova to its West, and Russia to its East, Ukraine’s people, 48 Million in total, 

and their political affiliation are truly representative of the constant dynamic between East and West. 

Ukraine’s recent Presidential run-off election, held on November 21st, also reflected this East/West divide. The Presidential race was held between current Prime 

Minister Viktor Yanukovich, who derives his strength from Southern and Eastern 

Ukraine, and opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, whose force comes from 

Central and Western Ukraine. The result of this election, and the proceeding events 

over the last few weeks, warrant deep concern for me and for the United States. 

As Ukrainians went to the polls three weeks ago, monitored by scores of domestic 

and international observers, including those from Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), several cases of electoral fraud were recorded and reported. There was blatant misuse of the government apparatus, subtle and violent 

intimidation of voters, fraudulent voter lists, and extensive absentee voter abuse. 

There were even reports of invisible ink being used on ballots. Major irregularities 

on Election Day have been well documented, and most of the world’s major powers 

declined to accept or recognize the flawed election results; which reported that 

Prime Minister Yanukovich won the Presidential election by 3 percentage points. 

In the initial aftermath of the ‘‘fraudulent’’ election, there were worrisome signs 

that chaos was spilling into the streets, as supporters of both Yanukovich and 

52

Yushchenko rushed into the streets of Ukraine’s major cities. Seemingly spontaneous, protests and political demonstrations flared up in both Western and Eastern 

Ukraine, in cities like L’viv, Kiev and Donestk. I was heartened that these demonstrations stayed peaceful and that the most recent developments out of Ukraine 

indicate that this electoral issue will be resolved through peaceful, constitutional 

means. The power to bring about a smooth transition of power rests solely with the 

Ukrainian government and its citizens, whose will should not be undermined in any 

way. Over the past three weeks, both sides have conducted a constructive dialogue 

to resolve the issue, while both the Ukrainian Parliament and its Supreme Court 

have effectively invalidated the election results. Thankfully, just recently, the 

Ukrainian Supreme Court scheduled another run-off election for the 26th of December. I hope these talks between the two sides continue and that both sides receive 

assurances that the next election will progress smoothly. 

The next step for Ukraine is to hold another round of Presidential elections between the two ‘‘Viktors,’’ free of fraud and manipulation, certified by both domestic 

and international observers, and upheld by the Ukrainian Supreme Court, to safeguard a peaceful succession process. There must not be a repeat of the concerted 

election fraud and abuse and the United States and the world community must do 

everything in their power to ensure that. 

The United States has a strong interest in Ukraine’s development as a modern 

democratic, capitalist state as it is gradually integrated into Trans-Atlantic institutions. 

Ukraine has been a strong U.S. ally in the War of Terror and has supplied troops 

and material to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States must do all that 

it can to build upon that friendly relationship and foster Ukraine’s Trans-Atlantic 

progress into the World Trade Organization and possible even acceptance into 

NATO. Only a truly democratic Ukraine, free of government corruption, would be 

able to secure a position in Trans-Atlantic institutions and organizations, as it 

would serve to bolster the prospects for democracy in the rest of the former Soviet 

Union and likewise may even breathe new life into pro-democracy forces within Russia itself. 

President Bush, the State Department, and this Congress have shown solidarity 

and support for the democratic gains and progress in Ukraine. This support must 

and will continue as our Ukrainian friends rise to meet the new challenges of a 

truly independence state, free from corruption and graft, and continue to a channel 

the divide between East and West. 

We owe a debt of gratitude to my colleague from Indiana, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, who served as President Bush’s special 

representative during the recent November run-off election. I am looking forward to 

his expert testimony and firsthand observations from his visit. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I compliment you on holding this hearing and praise our distinguished guest, Chairman Lugar, for making the effort to witness the election as 

President Bush’s personal representative and now calling attention to what we all 

now know to be fraudulent efforts in stealing an election. There simply isn’t any 

question that an attempt is ongoing to steal this election from the democratically 

elected, reform-minded victors. 

Mr. Chairman, as a proponent of the Reagan Doctrine which helped liberate Eastern Europe and end the Soviet Union itself, I am an optimist about the future of 

Ukraine. For a people who have suffered under tyranny and corruption for so long, 

now is the time for reform and democracy to begin to take hold. 

The events of the last month demonstrate that the people of Ukraine hunger for 

good leadership. Days of peaceful demonstrations, coupled with a willingness to 

compromise show good faith on the part of the public there. Only the old guard 

Communists stand in the way. It is worth noting that only reluctantly, grudgingly 

& under duress that the old guard Communists finally agreed to another election. 

Mr. Chairman, there simply isn’t any doubt who won this election: the democratically elected, reform-minded candidate. As a point of personal pride, Mr. Chairman, 

I want to point out that I was ahead of the curve on this. On September 15, 2004, 

I introduced the Constantine Menges Ukraine Democracy and Fair Elections Act of 

2004 in anticipating the very thing I feared might unfold. My bill was designed ‘‘to 

encourage the promotion of democracy, free, fair, and transparent elections, and respect for human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine.’’ Unfortunately, I didn’t have 

any cosponsors. Now we all know what happened. 

53

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling attention to this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SAWKIW, JR., PRESIDENT, UKRAINIAN CONGRESS

COMMITTEE OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to this esteemed committee on issues regarding the recent developments in Ukraine. The 

Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), the representative organization 

of the Ukrainian American community would like to express its gratitude, on behalf 

of our community, to the House International Relations Committee (HIRC) for your 

previous vocal support of Ukraine and assistance in its democracy-building process. 

The UCCA has worked with you over the years and has accumulated significant experience in terms of election observing and coordinating the efforts of our International Election Observer (IEO) delegations. This year alone, the two UCCA International Election Observer Delegations consisted of over 250 persons. The UCCA 

has been registered with the Central Elections Committee since 1994 and has implemented civic education programs as well as coordinated IEO delegations for every 

election in Ukraine since 1992. 

The UCCA also expresses the Ukrainian American community’s support of the 

American and Ukrainian troops on the ground in Iraq. We hope for the speedy resolution of this conflict with the least casualties and we pray for the safe return of 

our soldiers. 

CURRENT SITUATION IN UKRAINE

On October 31, 2004, 75% of the voting population in Ukraine came to the polls 

to cast their vote and elect a new president. After 90 days of campaigning, marred 

with irregularities and violations of electoral legislation, the voting process was also 

plagued with widespread violations. International election observers from Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and other organizations, including the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), found that these 

elections failed to meet a number of international standards; however, they did not 

go as far as declaring the election fraudulent and invalid. 

The second round of the elections, which took place on November 21, despite the 

hopes of the international community and Ukraine’s civic community, was marred 

by an even larger number of violations, which were committed unabashedly. The 

international community was outraged by the manner in which the runoff was conducted and the Ukrainian people took to the streets to protest the hijacked election 

and insist on their right to elect leadership in free and fair manner. The people of 

Ukraine have demonstrated for the past 15 days. Over a million Ukrainian citizens 

in Kyiv alone continue to demand that their voice be heard and their will be respected. To date, the opposition and its followers have exercised a great deal of restraint and have not provoked any violent incidents. That, however, has not been 

the case on the side of the incumbents. A demonstration in support of Our Ukraine’s

leader Viktor Yushchenko in Luhansk was attacked by a group of people armed 

with baseball bats and other weapons. Many people, including a Canadian journalist, received serious injuries and were hospitalized. Despite these acts of aggression, the opposition leaders and followers continue with their peaceful protests. 

The people of Ukraine have clearly indicated during the parliamentary elections 

in 2002 that their choice lays with Euro-Atlantic integration. Most of the parliamentarians elected then based their platform on this premise as well as further development of democratic governance. However, in the last few years, the current administration has directed its policy toward closer cooperation with Russia and continued 

to lead Ukraine back into a Russian sphere of influence. The presidential election 

campaign was built around the concept that the incumbents’ candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, favored a move away from Europe and toward Russia, 

while the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, was regarded as a pro-Western 

candidate. In reality, today Ukraine is much more united and cohesive in terms of 

the nation’s desires. 

Several of eastern regions initiated talks about possible cessation from Ukraine. 

Fortunately, the news report that the Donets’k region governor spoke on November 

30 to end such speculations and pointed out that the discussion were only about possibly re-organizing Ukraine into a federation. ‘‘There was not, are not, and will not 

be any discussion about cessation from Ukraine,’’ stated Gov. Blyzniuk. This instance demonstrates that the images of the East/West divide in Ukraine are an 

oversimplification. The people of Ukraine are united in their desire to live in a free 

and democratic state. Demonstrations in support of the opposition are taking place 

54

in all Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine, as well as demonstrations in support of the incumbents. The conflict runs deeper: it is the conflict between a return 

to totalitarianism and movement toward democracy. It is completely unfair to portray Ukraine as divided in any major sort of way because it is simply not true. This 

will become obvious to anyone who is following the news closely and watches the 

events in Ukraine. While the issue of the Russian language remains important, 

most Ukrainians favor integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, while maintaining 

cooperation with the Russian Federation on terms of equal partnership and independence. 

As of this writing (December 6, 2004), an agreement in the Ukrainian Parliament 

between contending sides to carry out timely Election Law reform and changes to 

the Central Election Commission needed to prevent fraud, intimidation and falsification in the new run-off second round election ordered by the Supreme Court 

to be held by December 26, 2004 has broken down. Although efforts to restart negotiations are under way, if a new Election Law and Central Election Commission are 

not approved in the next few days there will not be enough time to make the necessary changes to assure a genuinely democratic election process for the December 

26th run-off. There will be a very serious threat of yet another denial of a free and 

fair election that expresses the will of the Ukrainian people because of fraud, falsification and intimidation. 

VIOLATIONS

The first and second rounds of the Ukrainian Presidential Election on October 31, 

2004 and November 21, 2004 were characterized by all credible international observers from Europe, the United States, Canada and other countries as failing to 

meet a number of OSCE commitments and accepted worldwide standards for democratic elections. The Ukrainian Supreme Court has reviewed and accepted incontrovertible and massive evidence of election fraud, falsification and intimidation in 

the second round of the Election. On December 3rd, the Court ruled the run-off election of November 21 invalid and ordered a new run-off election with the same candidates on December 26, 2004. 

The November 22, 2004 report of the International Election Observation Mission 

of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Statement of 

Preliminary Findings and Conclusions attached) documents in detail a vast array 

of violations of the Ukrainian Election Law and procedural requirements by existing 

Ukrainian Government authorities, state-controlled media and enterprises, the Central Election Commission and Territorial and Polling Station Commissions. Selected 

examples include:

• Approximately 5% of voters were newly added to voter lists on election day 

through processes that precluded verification of voter registration, identity 

and eligibility;

• An extraordinary number of voters using unaccountable ‘‘absentee voting certificates’’ were bussed to various polling stations in organized groups escorted 

by police to vote in polling stations where unauthorized persons, including police, were found by observers to be intervening in the polling process;

• Documented large-scale instances of employees of state enterprises or state 

institutions (ranging from emergency responders to university students) being 

placed under duress to acquire and hand over to their superiors ‘‘absentee 

voter certificates’’ immediately prior to the election. As a result, these citizens 

were prevented from voting because the acquisition of a certificate automatically excludes the voter from voting in the polling station where originally 

registered. Observers reported that these certificates were collected in the 

workplace on an organized basis, surrendered in blanks to superiors and subsequently used on Election Day for bussed-voting by others.

• Failure to account for the number of ‘‘absentee voter certificates’’ issued and 

used facilitated large-scale multiple voting, destroying the integrity of voting 

results.

• Threats of violence and acts of violence occurred at polling stations. Intimidation of voters and international observers occurred.

NOTE: Please find attached a sampling of reports from the Ukrainian Congress 

Committee of America’s International Election Observers from the first and second 

round of the Ukrainian presidential elections. Their reports explain of the harrowing 

experience in numerous polling stations throughout Ukraine. The UCCA submits 

their testimonies for the record to ensure that additional International Election ObVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:10 May 24, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\120704\97187.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
55

servers understand the critical nature and vital aspect of an observer’s role in monitoring the electoral process in Ukraine. 

The election campaign was marred by many widespread violations and shortfalls, 

the bulk of which was the poor quality of voter lists. Thousands of voters were denied their constitutional right to vote because their names were either missing from 

the voter lists or were misspelled. In many instances, the voter lists included names 

of deceased persons, which indicates that the incumbent forces intended to use them 

in order to falsify the results. In at least one case in the Rivne region, the Prosecutor General’s office opened a criminal investigation based on reports that the authorities deliberately refused to include people’s names in the voter lists. Many citizens were forced to turn to the court system to defend their right to cast a vote; 

however, in many cases they reported that this process was made to be deliberately 

drawn out and complicated. 

Another widely observed violation involved the absentee ballots. Many persons 

traveled from Eastern regions of Ukraine with several ‘‘absentee voter certificates’’, 

which allowed them voters to cast their ballots at several polling stations. As an 

example, residents of the Ivano-Frankivsk region reported that an unannounced 

‘‘ghost’’ train arrived to their town from Luhansk. The announcer at the railway station did not indicate the place of departure of this train, simply announcing it as 

a ‘‘tourist’’ train. When asked about the mission of their trip, the young men, who 

were the majority of the passengers, stated that they came to ‘‘ensure elections.’’ 

The passengers were seen voting with detachment certificates at many polling stations in the city and the region. 

The involvement of the Russian Federation’s political elite in the election process 

in Ukraine is most disturbing. The open endorsement of Mr. Yanukovych by President Vladimir Putin and large sums of financial resources invested by the Kremlin 

into the election campaign are cause for concern. The international democratic community should not tolerate Russia’s open interference in the internal affairs of an 

independent state. As evident by many scholars and political observers, the situation in Ukraine is contradictory to the policies that President Putin wishes to instill 

in that country. In an op-ed in The Washington Post from December 4, 2004, ‘‘The 

real struggle in Ukraine is not about geo-political orientation; it is about democracy 

. . . The orange-bedecked protestors camping in the snows of Kiev [Kyiv, op. cit.] 

do so because they want their freedoms, not because they hate Russia or love the 

United States. Putin, who insists on portraying the conflict in anachronistic eastWest terms, does so because he seeks to install in Ukraine an authoritarian political 

system like the one he is constructing in Moscow.’’

Enumerating the violations would be an endless task. On behalf of the Ukrainian 

Congress Committee of America, we expressed our deep concern with the way the 

first round of elections was conducted and urged the government of Ukraine to ensure that the voting process during the second round would be free and fair, allowing all citizens of Ukraine, at home and throughout the world, to choose a president 

who will enjoy the nation’s trust and build Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policies 

according to the desires and for the benefit of its citizens. 

Unfortunately, after the negative reaction of the international community and the 

Ukrainian citizenry to the first round of elections, the incumbent government 

deemed it possible to continue playing unfairly. The people of Ukraine, due to the 

active work of Ukraine’s civic community, did not sheepishly step aside and allow 

the government to violate their rights. The country ended up in a serious political 

crisis, which can be blamed solely on the incumbent government, who continued to 

disregard the rights of its citizens. We in the Ukrainian American community, are 

extremely glad to see the change in the Ukrainian nation, which has come together 

in the last several days since November 21, rose up and proved to the world that 

it is a truly democratic nation, which will demand their rights to be protected. 

A NATION EMBOLDENED

The record high voter turnout in the presidential elections indicates that the 

Ukrainian electorate is becoming more active in their participation in the political 

process of their country. The protests of Ukrainian journalists, their open challenge 

of the government’s attempts at censorship and refusal to succumb to pressure also 

send an encouraging message. These signs of a developing civic community, which 

is becoming increasingly effective in its functions, the political consciousness of the 

public, and the lack of fear of retribution for public expression of an opinion point 

to realization that the Ukrainian nation reached a turning point in its history. The 

fear of repressions ingrained into previous generations by the Soviet government is 

no longer a factor in public thinking. The people of Ukraine insist on running their 

own lives and demand that their government be accountable to its citizens. This is 

56

the most important change that took place in the nation’s attitude toward the political process and political participation, which signals that democracy is now 

imbedded at the grassroots level in Ukraine. It will continue to develop and 

strengthen and with assistance from Western democracies Ukraine will undoubtedly 

become a full-fledged democracy based in a market economy. 

The second round of the presidential election clearly proved that the current government of Ukraine is not ready to give up its authoritarian methods of governing 

and will continue trying to coerce the citizenry into obeying their arbitrary decisions. This attempt resulted in the single largest and most forceful display of unity 

and devotion to democracy among the Ukrainian people. They, in our opinion, deserve full credit for the peaceful and orderly manner their protest is being conducted. They deserve strong and unequivocal support of the democratic international community. More attention and support is necessary for the democratic 

processes currently underway in Ukraine. Without such support, the Russian government will actively promote their efforts to establish a puppet regime in Ukraine. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The next weeks are extremely important for Ukraine. The outcome of this confrontation will have a decisive impact on Ukraine’s further development. With assistance of the democratic world, Ukraine will be able to overcome its Soviet legacy 

and close that chapter of its history without resorting to violence. The Ukrainian 

Congress Committee of America recommends that the House International Relations 

Committee:

• Continues to actively pursue cooperation with Ukraine 

For many years, Ukraine has been one of chief recipients of US foreign assistance. Despite the many problems with its distribution, this assistance is 

paying off and the civic community in Ukraine is now a strong base for further democratic development. By pursuing a close relationship with Ukraine 

and continuing to be vocal with both praises and rebukes, the United States 

will ensure that Ukraine remains a friendly and cooperative partner, strategically situated in the center of Europe and on the crossroads between East 

and West, as well as Europe and Asia. Such outcomes comply with the US 

strategic interests in the region.

• Take an active stand on the Ukrainian situation 

It is also important that the United States takes a strong and defined position in terms of supporting the Ukrainian nation. Maintaining relations with 

the Russian Federation should not compromise the support of the Ukrainian 

people, who are struggling to overcome the Soviet legacy and install a truly 

open and free democracy in Ukraine. While President Putin pursues his neoimperial agenda in Ukraine, the United States cannot remain silent for fear 

of compromising relations with Russia.

• Fund International Elections Observers 

Providing assistance to ensure free and fair election on the day of the vote 

is also essential. It is important for the Ukrainian people to see that foreign 

governments, in particular the United States, not only provide declaratory 

statements encouraging free and fair elections, but actively participate in the 

elections as observers. An official U.S. delegation of International Election 

Observers will serve that purpose and facilitate a better relationship between 

the United States and Ukraine. We respectfully urge you to recommend such 

action to your colleagues and organize an official delegation of International 

Election Observers for December 26, 2004. 

CONCLUSION

Ukraine has reached a decisive stage in its transitional development. The international community, interested in ensuring peace and furthering the tenets of democracy in the region, has provided significant assistance in helping Ukraine overcome its Soviet legacy and integrate into European and Euro-Atlantic structures; 

however, we urge the members of the House International Relations Committee to 

continue their involvement in Ukraine now to ensure a free, fair, transparent, and 

democratic process for the run-off elections on December 26, 2004. As stated in an 

op-ed in The Chicago Tribune on December 3, 2004, ‘‘In Eastern Europe’s exhilarating progression to democracy, this moment [current situation in Ukraine] will 

take its place alongside Lech Walesa vaulting the shipyard fence 24 years ago in 

Gdansk, Poland, the former Czechoslovakia’s velvet revolution, which brought the 

Soviet Union to its knees 15 years ago, and Georgia’s rose revolution, which 

57

rebuffed Russian influence last year.’’ Let not the United States stand idle in the 

Ukrainian nation’s desire to achieve true democracy! 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN F. TEFFT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Question: 

What are the details of the third round of Ukraine’s Presidential elections? Who 

will be allowed to run? 

Response: 

The re-vote in the Ukrainian presidential election took place on December 26. 

Technically, the December 26 balloting did not represent a ‘‘third round,’’ but a revoting of the flawed second round of November 21. The Ukrainian Supreme Court 

ordered the re-vote of the second round in its December 3 decision overturning the 

November 24 announcement by the Central Election Commission (CEC) that Prime 

Minister Viktor Yanukovych had won the second-round vote. The Supreme Court ordered the CEC to conduct the second round again in accordance with the timetable 

outlined in the presidential election law, i.e., on December 26. 

Given that the December 26 election was a re-vote of the second round, only the 

two candidates who ran in the second round, Prime Minister Yanukovych and opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, participated on December 26. The conduct of the 

voting was governed by the law on presidential elections, which was amended by 

the Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Parliament) in order to minimize opportunities for 

widespread fraud that had plagued the earlier second round. The new provisions 

limited absentee ballots to 0.5 percent of total voters; required that passports be 

stamped upon receipt of absentee ballots; and restricted use of mobile ballot boxes 

to invalids unable to leave their homes. The Constitutional Court’s December 25 decision to invalidate last-named provision of the amended election law created some 

confusion. We believe that the remaining amendments to the law, coupled with a 

strong domestic and international election-observer presence, helped reduce the incidents of fraud in the December 26 re-vote. 

Question: 

How many observers do you believe would be adequate to ensure the third round 

of the Ukrainian Presidential election is free from fraud and/or manipulation? 

Response: 

We believe that the domestic and international election monitors who observed 

the October 31 first round and November 21 second round of voting in the Ukrainian presidential election did an excellent job in uncovering and to some extent deterring fraud and abuse. We regard their missions as a resounding success. 

An increase in the numbers of observers and monitored polling stations for the 

December 26 re-vote of the second round helped to deter and uncover fraud and 

abuse. For this reason, the United States supported the call by the Organization for 

Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to increase the number of observers 

from 650 slated for the earlier votes to over 1,000 observers for the re-vote, of whom 

approximately 100 were part of the U.S. contingent. The U.S. also funded 75 of the 

OSCE observers from the Visegrad Four (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia) countries under a special arrangement, as well as the reconstitution of the 

1,000-person foreign NGO observer mission mounted by the European Network of 

Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO) with the support of Freedom House 

and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Additionally, we continued to support 

the work of the Ukrainian NGO Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU), which fielded 10,000 domestic observers and conduct quick-count parallel vote tabulations. 

Question: 

Media reports and commentary on Ukraine have cited that the Russian government and its clandestine operations funneled money into the Yanukovych campaign. 

Can you confirm that fact? And if so, could you provide the Committee the names 

of some of the entities in Ukraine and Russia that are receiving these funds and how 

they are being spent? 

Response: 

Given the shared history and geography between Russia and Ukraine, it is understandable that the Russian leadership has taken a strong interest in the Ukrainian 

58

election. Unfortunately, that interest translated into heavy involvement on behalf 

of one candidate. We have seen the reports of Russian financial backing of the 

Yanukovych campaign, and it is clear that some Russian resources went to this purpose. We have no reliable indication of the amount of funding. We are aware that 

a ‘‘Russia Club’’ was opened in Kiev before the election and that Russian campaign 

advisors to Mr. Yanukovych with ties to the Kremlin used the Russia Club as their 

headquarters. It is also the case that the Russian state media, which is particularly 

influential in eastern Ukraine, overwhelmingly supported Prime Minister 

Yanukovych and carried derogatory reports on opposition leader Yushchenko. 

We have consistently stressed to Moscow that our aim is to cooperate, not to compete, in Ukraine and throughout the region. We do not see the region in ‘‘zero-sum’’ 

terms or as ‘‘spheres of influence.’’ We believe that a democratic and prosperous 

Ukraine is in the best interests of Ukraine, the U.S., Russia, and the region. 

Question: 

Media reports and commentary on Ukraine have cited that the United States government and its clandestine operations funneled money into the Yushchenko campaign. Can you confirm that fact? And if so, could you provide the Committee the 

names of some of the entities in the United States and Ukraine that are receiving 

these funds and how they are being spent? 

Response: 

These allegations are without substance. We have said repeatedly that the United 

States does not favor a particular candidate in the race. Our focus has been entirely 

on the electoral process. We have always been prepared to work with any candidate 

who was elected in a free and fair process. What we support is the right of 

Ukraine’s people to have an electoral process and outcome that reflects their views. 

As Deputy Secretary Armitage said in a recent interview, ‘‘our candidate is the 

Ukrainian people.’’

Our election-related assistance went to support election monitors, voter education, 

training election commissions, exit polling and other non-partisan activities promoting a free and fair process. It is part of a broad effort to promote free media, 

rule of law, local government reform, civil society development, and transparent political processes. The outcome that our programs prescribe and promote is a democratic process that reflects the will of the people. We have not and do not endorse 

a particular candidate or party. Political party training funded by the U.S. Government is open to all parties on an equal basis. Pro-government as well as opposition 

politicians have taken part. 

The U.S., the EU, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and numerous individual nations, international organizations, and NGOs have supported developing democratic 

electoral processes, political parties, and civil societies—all elements of a democratic 

society—in Ukraine. The total FREEDOM Support Act budget for democracy assistance to Ukraine was approximately $58 million in the last two years, including contributions to the OSCE, and excluding academic exchanges. We spent $14.5 million 

on election-related activities in Ukraine through the November 21 vote. For the 

rerun vote the U.S. will provide more than $3 million in FY–04 FSA and other 

funds, most of which will be used for election monitors. 

Question: 

What role can the United States play in regard to furthering Ukraine’s accession 

into trans-Atlantic organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union? 

Response: 

The United States strongly supports Ukraine’s aspirations to draw closer to European and Euro-Atlantic institutions, provided that Ukraine continues to demonstrate its commitment to democracy and human rights. 

Both Prime Minister Yanukovych and opposition leader Yushchenko, as well as 

President Kuchma, Rada Speaker Lytvyn, and many other Ukrainian politicians, 

have identified WTO accession in 2005 as a priority. The United States strongly 

supports Ukraine’s WTO accession. We see WTO membership as a way to bring 

Ukraine more fully into the world trading system, advance its integration into Europe, and stimulate further economic growth. Ukraine is close to completing many 

of the requirements for accession. Its progress toward membership will depend on 

reforms that the Government of Ukraine needs to undertake. Key areas of concern 

include weak intellectual property rights (IPR), barriers to foreign agricultural products, and cumbersome Value Added Tax (VAT) policies. The U.S. funds a WTO advisor program, as well as a short-term USAID program to aid Ukraine’s efforts to 

bring its economic rules and regulations into conformity with WTO standards. 

59

The United States also strongly supports Ukraine’s aspirations to draw closer to 

NATO. At the NATO summit in 1997, NATO and Ukraine concluded a Charter on 

a Distinctive Partnership, defining a special relationship between the Alliance and 

Ukraine. Consultations take place within the NATO-Ukraine Commission. Conclusion of a NATO-Ukraine Action Plan in 2002 charted the way forward for Ukraine 

to strengthen further its relations with NATO. A major obstacle to Ukraine’s NATO 

aspirations, however, has been Ukraine’s record on political reform, including democracy and human rights and, in particular, the conduct of this year’s presidential 

election. The fact that the December 26 election brought Ukraine significantly closer 

to meeting international standards is an important step in demonstrating that 

Ukraine is moving to adopt the shared democratic values that are the foundation 

of the Euro-Atlantic community. Ukraine needs to move quickly to strengthen and 

institutionalize its democratic achievements, as well as to continue to institute economic and military reforms. 

On the question of Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, the United States 

is not a member of the EU and thus we have no vote on whether Ukraine should 

be allowed to become a member. As we have said, we support Ukraine’s aspirations 

to move closer to European institutions. We would note the central role that Polish 

President Kwasniewski, Lithuanian President Adamkus, EU high Representative 

Solana, and other EU leaders played in mediating a settlement of the election crisis 

in Ukraine. These efforts by the EU underscore the importance that the EU places 

on Ukraine. Like NATO, the EU is a community of shared democratic, human 

rights, and free-market values. Thus, recent events, in which the Ukrainian people 

affirmed their commitment to democracy, should help Ukraine move closer to the 

EU. 

Question: 

What is the future of the Single Economic Sphere amongst Russia, Ukraine, 

Belarus, and Kazakhstan if either Yanukovych or Yushchenko wins the election? 

Response: 

We would expect that Prime Minister Yanukovych and opposition leader 

Yushchenko would pursue quite different policies with regard to the Single Economic Space (SES). Yanukovych as Prime Minister actively pursued closer ties with 

Russia in general and the SES in particular, and we would expect that he would 

continue to do so if he were elected president. There are differences, however, in 

the way even pro-SES Ukrainian leaders view the SES and the way it is viewed 

by Moscow. The Russians have a more expansive view of the SES as a Customs 

Union, common external tariff regime, a vehicle for coordinated WTO accession, and 

eventual monetary union. The Ukrainian leadership under President Kuchma and 

Prime Minister Yanukovych had a more restricted view of the SES as only a genuine free-trade area with Russia. We would expect that this tension between views 

would continue under a Yanukovych presidency. 

Opposition leader Yushchenko, by contrast, has said that as president he would 

emphasize movement toward Western institutions, such as the EU. We would expect Yushchenko to make positive statements about cooperation with the SES, and 

to avoid any actions that would deliberately and blatantly antagonize Russia. However, as Yushchenko can be expected to work to preserve and enhance Ukraine’s 

economic independence, he would likely do little substantively to integrate Ukraine 

into SES structures.

Æ