1 The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign ...

laws explicitly said you can’t have private enterprise or hold capital. To make profits was
criminal. However, there were loopholes and the overriding precept - the Gorbachev
dictum was, “Whatever is not prohibited is permitted.” So he and the now Capitalist
Soviet leaders drove trucks through those loopholes, and the courts were instructed and
the law enforcement was instructed to allow the trucks to drive through these loopholes.
For some reason, our overall philosophy was, “Well, that’s the Wild West, the Wild East,
it’ll be a very quick transition and it will all trickle down.” The remnants of trickle-down
economic notions, the romanticism of the Gilded Era, in the sense that, of course, the
robber barons would become philanthropists as ours did. The path that was taken was a
huge mistake. What we in the West should have advocated, along with them, as some of
them did, was to work out, carefully, methods for equitable distribution of state assets.
They should have required full value for the sale of State assets. They should have used
the sale of assets for revolving funds for infrastructure needs. The Marshall Plan
approach, basically, would have been a sound basis for developing the means for a
democratic economic system rather that the oligarchic system they actually developed.
They didn’t do that. They’re still not doing it.
Q: Were other players, as you were watching this from Washington, in the Clinton
administration, were other countries involved? Germany, Britain, France, Japan, and so
on?
MILLER: Yes, they were all involved, but none to the extent that we were. We had such a
huge preponderance of power, both military and economic – the EU hadn’t taken hold
yet, it was beginning – so the European influences were still from separate nations, rather
than the EU, as a European entity, although it was beginning to have coherence. We were
the leader, so they were following our power-lead, and the influence that was in the
international banks – World Bank, IMF, EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development), and the other development banks, were all following our lead. We were
ignorant, grossly so, about what to do, which was understandable in retrospect, perhaps.
Q: As I recall, we were making loans, investments, what have you, of rather sizeable
amounts, weren’t we? Were you part of that process?
MILLER: In the case of Ukraine, yes. It was the third largest recipient of foreign
assistance, from us, just from the United States, and from the banks, the international
banks of comparable levels. What was missing was a sense, on the one hand, from the
Ukrainians, what kind of economy they wanted to have, what proportion – things are
moving.
Q: Bill, you were talking about the Ukraine. I think maybe this would be a good place to
stop, with the transition. But we haven’t talked about, sort of, your specific role in the
transition.
MILLER: The transition team and all of that? How that works?
173