Mr. Kent described U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine as encompassing the priorities of “promoting the rule of law, energy independence, defense sector reform, and the ability to stand up to Russia.”103 Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that it “was—and remains—a top U.S. priority to help Ukraine fight corruption” because corruption makes Ukraine more “vulnerable to Russia.”104 Additionally, she testified that an honest and accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian partnership more reliable and more valuable to the United States.105
Mr. Holmes testified that Ambassador Yovanovitch was successful in implementing anticorruption reforms in Ukraine by achieving, for example, “the hard-fought passage of a law establishing an independent court to try corruption cases.”106 Mr. Holmes said Ambassador Yovanovitch was “[a]s good as anyone known for” combatting corruption.107 The reforms achieved by Ambassador Yovanovitch helped reduce the problem faced by many post-Soviet countries of selective corruption prosecutions to target political opponents.108
There was a broad consensus that Ambassador Yovanovitch was successful in helping Ukraine combat pervasive and endemic corruption.
President’s Authority Does Not Explain Removal of Yovanovitch
While ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, the manner and circumstances of Ambassador Yovanovitch’s removal were unusual and raise questions of motive.109
Ambassador Yovanovitch queried “why it was necessary to smear my reputation falsely.”110 She found it difficult to comprehend how individuals “who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated U.S. policy against corruption” were “able to successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting ambassador using unofficial back channels.”111
Dr. Hill similarly testified that while the President has the authority to remove an ambassador, she was concerned “about the circumstances in which [Ambassador Yovanovitch’s] reputation had been maligned, repeatedly, on television and in all kinds of exchanges.” Dr. Hill “felt that that was completely unnecessary.”112
Recall of Yovanovitch Threatened U.S.-Ukraine Policy
The smear campaign questioning Ambassador Yovanovitch’s loyalty undermined U.S. diplomatic efforts in Ukraine, a key U.S. partner and a bulwark against Russia’s expansion into Europe. As Ambassador Yovanovitch explained:
- Ukrainians were wondering whether I was going to be leaving, whether we really represented the President, U.S. policy, et cetera. And so I think it was—you know, it really kind of cut the ground out from underneath us.113
Summarizing the cumulative impact of the attacks, she emphasized: “If our chief representative is kneecapped it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States.”114
49
