Ukraine's Challenges, the West's Response
-
Mired in political gridlock, battered by economic crisis, and uncertain about its foreign relations, Ukraine faces a difficult year, a year that will end with a presidential election. How is Ukraine coping with these difficulties? And how should the West respond in helping Ukraine meet the challenges before it?
Synopsis
Ambassador Pifer begins his assessment of Ukraine’s challenges by identifying the four key issues it will have to face this coming year. Firstly, Mr. Pifer argues that a serious problem is the incompatible relations between Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yushchenko, and Ukraine’s prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. Mr Pifer identifies the energy situation as a key battle issue between the two. Most seriously, Mr. Pifer believes that such feuding compromises Ukraine’s ability to deal with serious issues such as energy and the economic crisis. In addition, Russia seems to play the two against each other. Therefore, Mr. Pifer argues that the West begin by getting the two to cooperate on key issues. Mr. Pifer also stresses the need for a coordinated US-EU stance and also proposes the possible revival of a US-Ukraine bi-national commission.
An aspect of Ukraine clearly being affected by this feud is Ukraine’s handling of the economy. Mr. Pifer examines how Ukraine was suddenly hit hard by the global financial crisis in October 2008. This was partly caused by a fall in the global demand for steel, one of Ukraine’s key exports, and led to further inflation and investors avoiding the country. Ukraine also received $16 billion from the IMF on the conditions of having almost no budget deficit and fell short of this condition earlier this year leading to a delay in the transfer of funds from the IMF. While some believe in a possible recovery in 2010, Mr. Pifer argues the West can help in several ways. Firstly, it must push Ukraine to continue to follow IMF conditions to receive the vital funding. Mr. Pifer also proposes an international donor conference for Ukraine to receive the additional money it needs but will not receive from the IMF. He argues for the abolition of Ukraine’s “communist” commercial code and the freer sale of land to get the agricultural market flowing.
Another possible crisis point is Ukraine’s energy situation. Mr. Pifer examines Ukraine’s dependence on Russia and how during the January crisis it did not pass any reserve gas onto its Western neighbors, weakening its international reputation. Mr. Pifer does recognize Ukraine’s efforts to lessen its use of natural gas, particularly due to the increase in prices. However, he argues Ukraine is still very vulnerable, and this is not helped by the fact that Ukraine’s own energy agency is nearing bankruptcy as it maintains unsustainably low prices. Therefore, Mr. Pifer believes the first step forward is, although tough, for energy prices to be raised. Then, the West should offer technical assistance to improve the efficiency of Ukraine’s energy system. Finally, Ukraine should seek EU funding to modernize its pipelines.
The final issue Mr. Pifer addresses is Ukraine’s complex foreign policy. Mr. Pifer explains Ukraine’s difficult relationship with Russia is marred by differences over energy, NATO, and Georgia. Mr. Pifer also cites Russia’s resources in Ukraine to stir tension if it wants to weaken the country. Another serious aspect is Ukraine’s uncertain relationship with the EU consisting of support from the Baltic states and reluctance from the Western states such as France and Germany. Mr. Pifer feels it is important for the West not to give up on Ukraine but to push the country to forge a consistent line between president and prime minister. The US should also let Ukraine know how much support it would receive were it to become involved in an economic conflict with Russia.
Mr. Pifer concludes by stating that the US should be clear that this new attempt at resetting relations might not survive a Russian-initiated crisis with Ukraine.
In answering the audience's multitude of questions, a variety of issues were raised. Discussion included key points such as the receptiveness of Ukrainian leaders to international advice or the impact of Ukraine's membership of the World Trade Organization. One issue Mr. Pifer particularly emphasized was his belief that Ukraine should not be part of NATO as long as public opinion stands against it.
about the speaker
Steven Pifer is a visiting fellow at the
Brookings Institution and a (non-resident) senior adviser with the
Center for
Strategic and International Studies. A retired Foreign Service officer,
his more than 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S.
relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe, as well as on arms
control and security issues. His assignments included deputy assistant
secretary of state in the
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (2001-2004), ambassador to
Ukraine (1998-2000), and special assistant to
the president and National Security Council senior director for Russia,
Ukraine
and Eurasia (1996-1997). He also served
at the U.S. embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, as well as with the
U.S.
delegation to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces negotiations in
Geneva. He holds a
B.A. in economics from Stanford University, where he
later spent a year as a visiting scholar at Stanford's Institute for
International Studies. He is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Sponsored by the Forum on Contemporary Europe and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Steven Pifer
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution; Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Former US Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000)
Speaker
Seminars
Proliferation of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: The Threat of Fragmentation vs. the Promise of a More Effective System? - Some Reflections from the Perspective of Investment Arbitration
Paragraphs
(From the introduction) For more than a decade, international lawyers and international relations scholars have been fascinated by an ever-increasing number of international courts and tribunals. These are producing more international case-law, thereby replacing the traditional scarcity of international law precedents embodied in a few celebrated ICJ and PCIJ cases. Today, there is a host of frequently highly specialized international dispute settlement mechanisms like the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the International Tribunal for the Law of The Sea, the International Criminal Court, various investment tribunals acting under The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention or other arbitration rules. All apply, interpret and probably ‘make’ international law. One question frequently raised in this context is whether these institutions contribute to the development of a single uniform body of international law or whether they make ‘their own’ ever more fragmented law. To the extent that they must apply specifically agreed upon rules, such as the WTO agreements, various bilateral investment protection treaties or the Law of the Sea Convention, etc., this is of course largely a false problem. In so far as they rely on common rules of international law, coherence vs. fragmentation does indeed arise and is a serious issue.
Scholars of international law have intensely debated these problems mostly under the heading ‘fragmentation’ of international law or ‘proliferation’ of international courts and tribunals. Gerhard Hafner has significantly contributed to this scholarly debate in a number of articles, and most importantly in a report prepared for the International Law Commission (ILC), which triggered the Commission’s work on fragmentation and was further pursued by Gerhard Hafner’s successor on the ILC, Martti Koskenniemi.
It thus appears appropriate to dedicate a few modest thoughts about these issues to a great international lawyer with whom I have had the privilege to work at the Department of International Law and International Relations at the University of Vienna during the last twenty years. Gerhard Hafner will understand that due to the space allotted in this liber amicorum, I must limit the scope of my remarks on fragmentation and proliferation to a specific subfield of international law. He will also appreciate that the chosen field is investment law and arbitration, which, in many respects, may be viewed as a test laboratorium of international law where many of the pertinent problems mentioned above have appeared in particularly visible form.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers in "International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation - Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner", J. Crawford/A. Pellet/I. Buffard/S. Wittich (eds.)
Ukraine's September Elections and the Challenges Awaiting the New Government
-
The 2007 Ukrainian elections are a clear move forward in a variety of ways. Ambassador Steven Pifer sets out why, as well as the options for the creation of a coalition government. Mr. Pifer also clearly explains the number of key issues that the new government will have to face.
Synopsis
Ambassor Pifer begins by explaining the election results from September 2007. He reveals who he believes were the winners and losers, as well as who thinks we will have to wait for and see. Mr. Pifer argues that, in any case, the election was good news for democratization in Ukraine. Citing that this has been the third consecutive national election, he believes that the country is getting a grip of how elections are to be run. Mr. Pifer reinforces this by explaining that the election was free, fair, and basically fraudless. Another point Mr. Pifer emphasizes is the fact that the parties generally accepted the outcome, as well as that major parties such as Tymoshenko’s bloc are breaking out of their regional bases.
However, Mr. Pifer explains that the elections do not mean the work is over as a coalition is yet to be formed. He examines the possibility of the an ‘orange restoration’ involving a coalition between President Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, but there are some fears that Tymoshenko may not receive the necessary number of votes in Ukraine’s parliament to become prime minister. On the other hand, others have looked towards the possibility of a coalition between President Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych. Mr. Pifer believes this seems more natural, but he is again not sure deputies would support it. Mr. Pifer also examines what President Yushchenko might want personally and what would benefit him politically.
Although which coalition will be formed is not clear, Mr. Pifer feels there are some clear challenges for the government to face when it comes into power. He argues that while the economy is strong, evidence includes the emergence of a middle class, there are several steps to be made on the economy. He explains that Ukraine must complete WTO accession, abolish its outdated commercial code, free the sale of agricultural land, and reform the tax and regulatory systems. Most urgently, Mr. Pifer argues that energy security must be taken care of, and this must be part of a necessary effort to manage relations with Russia better. Inside the government, Mr. Pifer notes ambiguities in the constitution which must be amended, and he stresses serious steps must be taken to counter corruption. Mr. Pifer also hopes that Ukrainian government can develop habits of cooperation and compromise and move beyond politics to pass policies. He concludes by emphasizing that he is optimistic about Ukraine’s opportunities, but he also feels Ukraine has a tendency to miss them rather than seize them.
about the speaker
Steven Pifer is a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A retired Foreign Service officer, his more than 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe, as well as on arms control and security issues. His assignments included deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (2001-2004), ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000), and special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia (1996-1997). He also served at the U.S. embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, as well as with the U.S. delegation to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces negotiations in Geneva. He holds a B.A. in economics from Stanford University, where he later spent a year as a visiting scholar at Stanford's Institute for International Studies. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room
Steven Pifer
Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Speaker
Seminars
EU Agriculture, the WTO Negotiations and Agenda 2000
European Political Systems Seminar
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Alan Swinbank
Speaker
University of Reading
Seminars
Workshop on the Status of Agricultural Policy Reform in the US, the EU, and the WTO
Session I: Analytical Frameworks for Studying Farm Policy Reform
Speaker: Wayne Moyer, Grinnell College
Discussant: Christophe Crombez, University of Leuven and Stanford University
Session II: The Evidence of a Hallian Paradigm Shift in Farm Policy
Speaker: Timothy Josling, Stanford University
Discussant: David Orden, Virginia Tech
Session III: Experience with Farm Policy Reform, 1990-1995
Speaker: Timothy Josling, Stanford University (GATT/WTO: UR up to Heysel, 1990)
Discussant: Stephen Tangermann, University of Gottingen; Lee Ann Patterson, UCSF
Speaker: Wayne Moyer, Grinnell College (US 1990 Farm Bill)
Discussant: David Orden, Virginia Tech
Speaker: Timothy Josling, Stanford University (Blair House, 1992-1993 and URAA, 1994)
Discussant: Wayne Moyer, Grinnell College (EU 1992 CAP Reform)
Session IV: Farm Policy Reform, 1996-2000
Speaker: Wayne Moyer, Grinnell College (US 1996 Fair Act)
Discussant: David Orden, Virginia Tech
Speaker: Wayne Moyer, Grinnell College (EU Agenda 2000)
Discussant: Stefan Tangermann, University of Gottingen; John Gillingham, University of Missouri
Session V: Future of Farm Policy Reform
Speaker; Tim Josling, Stanford University (WTO 2000 Round)
Speaker: David Orden, Virginia Tech (US Farm Policy Futures)
Speaker: Stefan Tangermann, University of Gottingen (CAP Reform Possibilities)
Discussant: All
Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
Workshops
Symposium on Trans-Atlantic Trade Conflicts: Understanding and Resolving the Banana Problem
Session I: The World Banana Market
Speaker: Tom Spreen, University of Florida
Discussant: Micky Paggi, Congressional Budget Office
"The World Banana Market"
Session II: Bananas and the EU
Speaker: Stephan Tangermann, University of Gottingen
Discussant: Jo Swinnen, Leuven and EU Commission
"Bananas and the EU"
Session III: Bananas and Multinationals
Speaker: Tim Taylor and Xavier Abufele, University of Florida
Discussant: Micky Paggi, Congressional Budget Office
"Bananas and Multinationals"
Session IV: Bananas and the Caribbean
Speaker: Tim Taylor, University of Florida; Patrick Antoine, RNM, Barbados
Discussant: John Stovall, NCFAP, Washington
"Bananas and the Carribbean"
Session V: Bananas and the WTO
Speaker: Timothy Josling, Stanford University
Discussant: Stephan Tangermann, University of Gottingen
"Bananas and the WTO"
Session VI: Lessons for Trade Policy
Session VII: Group discussion about the completion and publication of the book "Going Bananas"
Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
Symposiums
Labeling Products of Food Biotechnology: Panacea or Hidden Trade Barrier?
In the debates surrounding genetically modified organisms in the food supply, the issue of labeling has become ever more salient. The EU is developing regulations to require labeling and traceability for all foods containing or derived from GMOs. Other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and Thailand are also in the process of developing voluntary labeling guidelines. In January of 2000, 130 countries adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety which calls for bulk shipments of GMO commodities, such as corn or soybeans that are intended to be used as food, feed or for processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such shipments "may contain" living modified organisms and are "not intended for intentional introduction into the environment." Will these labeling systems prevent trade disruptions and enhance the international trading system established by the WTO? Or will they act as non-tariff barriers that obfuscate consumer decisions and lead to greater expense, confusion and ultimately to new trade wars?
Any GMO labeling debate must take into consideration the political, economic, legal, operational and administrative aspects of such labeling. The political considerations include the maintenance of confidence in the food system and how policy makers balance the demands of domestic constituencies against their various international obligations, such as under WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. The economic questions focus on a cost/benefit analysis of segregation and identity-preservation and whether labels provide information or capture a premium for producers. The legal issues include the possible challenge of discrimination in trade and the extent of liability under domestic law for misleading or incorrect labels. Operational adn administrative questions center on whether to make labels mandatory, whether to take a product or process approach, how feasible and costly are particular approaches and whether it is necessary it is necessary to require full traceability.
The workshop will be hosted by the European Forum of the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. The goal of the workshop is to make a significant contribution to the ongoing policy debate. Participants will include academic, government and private sector specialists and bring expertise in economics, law and political science.
Seminars
Competition Policy and the New Economy: A Transatlantic Perspective on Regulatory Challenges
The conference will explore the application of competition policy rules to aspects of the "new" economy, in particular where networks and information flows are leading to rapid changes in industrial structure. Both US and European views will be represented, and the prospects for avoiding further tensions in transatlantic relations over different approaches will be explored. The focus will be on four sectors that are currently undergoing structural changes through mergers and which have posed questions for transatlantic cooperation and for antitrust regulations; telecoms and internet access; e-commerce and internet marketplaces; airlines and code-sharing; and biotechnology and genomics. These same issues are also likely to be significant in global discussions of competition policy in the WTO and elsewhere.
The conference will bring together academic economists, lawyers and political scientists from the US and Europe along with invited private sector and government participants. To ensure the opportunity for intensive discussion, attendance will be limited to thirty people.
Bechtel Conference Center
Conferences