You are here

FCO: Leigh Turner - Why Ukraine Matters

It is the former British Consul to Ukraine, Leigh Turner who blogs this month on Why Ukraine Matters and What Comes Next  He writes of Russians like most people desiring stability, peace and a decent  standard of living.

This point was made by a social enterprise leader writing from Kharkiv,  in 2005 where he worked alongside non-violent Maidan activists.

"If everyone in Ukraine had a nice home, a nice car, plenty of food, good income, good health care, there would have been no need for revolution – nor would there likely have been one.  Too many people were being crushed by the old regime, their voices and opinions were rarely if ever listened to by an utterly corrupt government, and the only conceivable solution was freedom and democracy as an essential first step to change things."

The author with my support went on to do something about it and by the end of 2006 had delivered our strategy plan, "Microeconomic Development and Social Enterprise: A 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine" through trusted channels to Ukraine's government.     

The primary focus, described in Part 1 was relief for tens of thousands of children, considered valueless to society due to their disabilities  With the support of Maidan Terry Hallman spoke out about these "Death Camps, For Children" to identify the root cause - corruption. .

Ukraine matters indeed and that means it's people, especially the most vulnerable hence this statement from the 'Marshall Plan'

'This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way. ':

This was no diplomat's platitute but the grounded philosophy of a man who later re-itereated the message that people matter to social enterprise.

"The term “social enterprise” in the various but similar forms in which it is being used today — 2008 — refers to enterprises created specifically to help those people that traditional capitalism and for profit enterprise don’t address for the simple reason that poor or insufficiently affluent people haven’t enough money to be of concern or interest. Put another way, social enterprise aims specifically to help and assist people who fall through the cracks. Allowing that some people do not matter, as things are turning out, allows that other people do not matter and those cracks are widening to swallow up more and more people. Social enterprise is the first concerted effort in the Information Age to at least attempt to rectify that problem, if only because letting it get worse and worse threatens more and more of us. Growing numbers of people are coming to understand that “them” might equal “me.” Call it compassion, or call it enlightened and increasingly impassioned self-interest. Either way, we are all in this together, and we will each have to decide for ourselves what it means to ignore someone to death, or not."

Going back to 2003 when our focus was Crimea's Tatars, we'd warned of the strategic risk of considering some people to have lesser value than ourselves:   

A couple of years ago, Leigh Hunt had blogged on the subject of social entrepreneurship in Ukraine. Strictly speaking this is different to the self-sustaining form we advocate and practice in that it is typically driven by grant funding. He writes of those participating in a seminar::

"There is no “one-size-fits all solution”.  But the idea of helping people to take the initiative in tackling social issues, rather than waiting for the state or charities to do it, must make sense in every society. The training is organized by the Renaissance Foundation, working in partnership with the British Council and the East Europe Foundation and supported by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Erste Bank (itself a social enterprise) and the Ukrainian Fund for Support of Enterprise. "

In December 2008, following my introduction, the FCO had informed me by email that they and the Ukraine Embassy desk were now aware of our work in Ukraine. We later communicated directly with Price Waterhouse Cooper and Erste Bank. The British Council had been soliciting partners and we applied.  All of these organisations were aware of the 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine and any likeness in their work must be far from coincidental.

Going back to late 2007, it was the East Europe Foundation who launched a funding initiative, soliciting small scale community enterprise for applications. We applied for a $25k grant to build the the first of the rehab centres which by then Ukraine's government had agreed to, as I describe in my article 'Every Child Deserves a Loving Family.'  

After 3 months waiting for their 30 day decision, the issue was escalated by letter to USAID and the Senate Comittee on Foreign Relations:

Given the current crisis, the concluding paragraph offered a prescient warning:

"We are grossly underfunded in favor of missiles, bombs, and ordnance, which is about 100% backwards. Now, with even the US Pentagon stating that they’ve learned their lesson in Iraq and realize (so says top US general in Iraq ten days or so ago) that winning hearts and minds is the best option, I and others shall continue to think positive and look for aid budgets and funding spigots to be opened much more for people and NGOs in silos, foxholes and trenches, insisting on better than ordnance, and who understand things and how to fix them. We can do that. We can even do it cost-effectively and with far better efficiency than the ordnance route. Welcome to our brave new world. Except it’s not so new: learn to love and respect each other first, especially the weakest, most defenseless, most voiceless among us, then figure out the rest. There aren’t other more important things to do first. This message has been around for at least two thousand years. How difficult is it for us to understand?"

The eventual response from USAID would make it clear that some people, particularly these children, still don't matter.

As for the British Council, it would take a letter to my MP to discover that one of the eligibility criteria for partnership was the ability to make a financial contribution, They are still soliticing partners, neglecting to state this requirement.

It had become very clear that this was a club where we were not welcome as members. 

What's going on here, you may wonder. Social enterprise being excluded in favour of corporations. The truth may well be found by looking closer at the other partners who include Ukriane's leading oligarchs. Those identified in the 'Death Camps' story as the root cause of the problem:

"Excuses won't work, particularly in light of a handful of oligarchs in Ukraine having been allowed to loot Ukraine's economy for tens of billions of dollars. I point specifically to Akhmetov, Pinchuk, Poroshenko, and Kuchma, and this is certainly not an exhaustive list. These people can single-handedly finance 100% of all that will ever be needed to save Ukraine's orphans. None of them evidently bother to think past their bank accounts, and seem to have at least tacit blessings at this point from the new regime to keep their loot while no one wants to consider Ukraine's death camps, and the widespread poverty that produced them.."

Everybody matters perhaps as long as it doesn't conflict with the interests of influential friends. The British government has to understand that takling Ukraine's corruption can't be resolved by adding their own duplicity. 

The influence of the 'Marshall Plan' is difficult to ignore. a call for capitalism to be applied to resolving social problems by means of business with embedded social purpose. The case for a new bottom line which seems to have struck such a chord with business leaders like Paul Polman.   

For it's author however the intellectual property and the 12 man years invested, was released to Ukraine's government, on one clearly stated condition:

"It is not enough to help these kids without dealing with the causes -- primarily corruption and displacement of Ukraine's cash and resources -- that put children in such conditions to begin with.  This systemic recognition is at least beginning to be understood.  The 'Marshall Plan' details it, and provides comprehensive solutions with a financial net-cost to government over seven years of: zero. That's about as well as it can be done.  It will work, and it must be done if Ukraine wants to become a member of civilized nations.  US and Europe can and should help, but only after first conditions are met unilaterally by Ukraine -- the sole condition on which I released the 'Marshall Plan for Ukraine.'  Those conditions are simple: take care of your children, all of them, close the orphanages and gulags, open the truth of the matter, and never try to hide any of it again."

Unfortunately for those who matter less, as we may see clearly at Davos, there is little progress. Tony Blair, who was British PM while we operated in Ukraine, the man who made social enterprise UK government policy, now has greater loyalties.

For those who did not matter, like the abandoned children of Torez, on which the 'Death Camps' report was based. Mother Teresa, sums it up:

"One of the greatest diseases it to be nothing to anyone "

 

 

 

 

"