Explaining Foreign Policy Change in Transitional States: A Case Study of Ukraine between Two Revolutions By © 2017 Lidiya Zubytska M.A., University of Notre Dame, 2004 B.A., Ivan Franko National University of L’viv, 2002 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Political Science and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Chair: Mariya Omelicheva Robert Rohrschneider Nazli Avdan Steven Maynard-Moody Erik Herron Date Defended: 24 July 2017 The dissertation committee for Lidiya Zubytska certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Explaining Foreign Policy Change in Transitional States: A Case Study of Ukraine between Two Revolutions Chair: Mariya Omelicheva Date Approved: 24 July 2017 ii ABSTRACT Over the span of a decade, Ukraine saw two revolutions that rocked its political and social life to the very core. The Orange revolution of 2004, a watershed event in the post-Soviet history of East European states, reversed the authoritarian trend in the country and proclaimed its course for democracy and integration with the European Union. However, reforms and electoral promises of the revolutionary leaders quickly turned into shambles, and instead another pro- Russian authoritarian leader consolidated power. As Ukrainian political elites vacillated between closer ties with the EU to its west and the Russian Federation to its east, the 2014 Revolution of Dignity rose again to defend the European future for Ukraine. In this work, I investigate the driving forces shaping foreign policymaking in Ukraine during these years. I posit that it was precisely because such policies were shaped in an uncertain post-revolutionary transitional political environment that we are able to see seemingly contradictory shifts in Ukraine’s relations with the EU and Russia. To understand how the process of foreign policy making works in a transitional state, I develop a new theoretical approach that combines insights from poliheuristic theory in foreign policy analysis with comparative politics’ scholarship on developing party systems. I argue that leaders in transitional states face a different kind and level of political uncertainty. Transitional uncertainty shortens leaders’ time horizons and prompts them not to seek re-elections, but rather pursue narrower personal and political benefits in the transitioning political system. In such context, transitional leaders rely on ‘party substitutes’ to provide them with a wealth of material, organizational and reputational resources, such as a safe exit, a personal remuneration, a party seat, and others. Poliheuristic theory suggests that domestic politics is a primary and non-compensatory consideration in foreign policymaking. I elaborate a causal mechanism that links transitional iii uncertainty, party substitutes’ interests and foreign policy change. I advance that party substitutes’ interests, such as oligarchic ones in Ukraine, are the key components in understanding how Ukrainian leaders built their foreign relations with the EU and Russia in the post-revolutionary period. The changes in Ukrainian leadership during the period of transition led to the changes in their oligarchic connections. The change in oligarchic interests influenced the corresponding foreign policy change that would take place. I process trace the empirical data in support of my theoretical argument in a multi-level analysis of documentary sources, historical records and chronicles, and primary data derived from interviews and personal observation, and provide an in-depth investigation of foreign policy making in Ukraine from 2004 through 2011. The causal mechanism I elaborate is theoretically open for subsequent extensions and empirical applications to foreign policymaking during transitions of other countries around the world. By applying this mechanism to the historically important post-revolutionary period in Ukraine, this work aims to be the first systematic and theory-driven English language study of Ukraine’s foreign policy at the turn of the 21st century. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT While working on this dissertation I accrued an immense debt of gratitude to dear colleagues, friends and family members whose thoughtfulness and guidance supported me over these past years. My dissertation advisor, Mariya Omelicheva, has been a constant example of creative enthusiasm, professionalism and genuine pedagogic talent. Despite the geographical distance between us in the final stage of this dissertation writing, she remained unchangingly engaged in my professional growth. I am deeply grateful. Robert Rohrschneider’s scholarship and clarity of academic thought has been a great inspiration. Steven Maynard-Moody’s reflective engagement with diverse fields and methodological issues in social sciences is an example I hope to follow. I am thankful to Erik Herron for the wealth of regional expertise, attention to detail and professional assistance that he so generously provided. My sincere thanks are also to Nazli Avdan for her continuous support for me and my work as it developed over the years. I owe much of the success of this work to the wonderful faculty, staff and students of the Political Science Department at University of Kansas. All of you, in a multitude of unique ways, shaped, challenged and refined me as a scholar and as a friend. Finally, and most importantly, I am appreciative beyond words to my dear family and friends who unfailingly stood behind me and helped to see this work to its completion. To my husband, my unvaryingly biggest cheerleader in this endeavor, I owe the greatest thanks. To my spritely and kind-hearted children, Anna, Vika, Emma and Nadiya, who learned the mysterious word combination “finish the dissertation” far earlier than most kids in their age - I am v immensely blessed to be your mother. To my parents, my dear friends both in the US, Ukraine and around the globe who carried me on the wings of their good wishes, thoughts and prayers – I would not have been able to do it without you. vi DEDICATION To my Father “As to more than these, my son, beware. Of the making of many books there is no end, and in much study there is weariness for the flesh.” Ecclesiastes 12:12 vii Table of Contents ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...iii AKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………....vi DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………………. vii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………xi List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...xiii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………xiv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Research Question and Theoretical Argument ...........................................................................2 1.2. Theoretical Contribution ..............................................................................................................5 1.3. Ukrainian Transition and Universe of Cases ..............................................................................8 1.4. Methodological Note ....................................................................................................................9 Chapter 2 THEORETICAL GROUNDS ................................................................................. 11 2.1. Conceptualization of Foreign Policy Change ...........................................................................11 2.2. Cognitivist Approach to Uncertainty and Its Role in Decision Making ...................................15 Chapter 3 METHOD OF STUDY AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF VARIABLES ... 24 3.1. Definition of the Method ............................................................................................................24 3.2. “Ten Steps for Good Process Tracing” for Ukrainian Foreign Policy Case .....................28 3.3. Putting the Method to Work: Operationalization and Data .....................................................38 3.3.1. Operationalization of Transition ....................................................................................................40 3.3.2. Operationalization of Uncertainty ..................................................................................................43 3.3.3. Operationalization of Foreign Policy Decision Maker and Party Substitute Interests ..................47 3.3.4. Operationalization of Foreign Policy Change ...............................................................................49 viii Chapter 4 POLITICAL TRANSITION IN UKRAINE: AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 53 4.1. Beginning of Political Transition in Ukraine: 2000-2003 ........................................................54 4.2. Political Transition after the Orange Revolution, 2005-2009 ..................................................59 4.2.1. Declared Values of the Orange Revolution Political Actors ..........................................................60 4.2.2. Orange Promises Kept and Broken: Unfinished Reforms, Incomplete Transition .........................65 4.2.2.1. Reform of the Presidential Administration in Ukraine ................................................................67 4.2.2.2. “Civil Society Participation Boards:” Bringing Government Closer to People ..........................77 4.2.2.3. Professional Civil Service of Ukraine: