A Breakthrough in Ukraine-U.S. Relations

Without a doubt, President Viktor Yushchenko returned from his visit to the United States last week with many impressions (a standing ovation in Congress, with congressmen sporting orange ties, and the prestigious JFK Prize) and concrete results. Most importantly, his visit marked the end of a cool period in Ukrainian-US relations. There’s a simple explanation for the success of his visit: the credit of trust Ukraine received from its partners in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution is still there, it’s working for the Ukrainian president’s benefit, meaning that it is benefiting the Ukrainian state, at least for the time being. What happened in the US was another meeting between Viktor Yushchenko and George Bush, and it looks as though other meetings are in order. According to sources close to The Day, the Ukrainian and U.S. presidents may well meet again in New York this June at the UN summit, then in September to mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. President George Bush is also expected to visit Ukraine in the second half of this year. This is another result of Viktor Yushchenko’s trip to America, proof that official Kyiv is determined to uphold universally recognized democratic values. Of course, exporting revolution isn’t the point; the point is to act in accordance with the international instruments currently in effect. Proof of this is what the Ukrainian and US heads of states had to say on human rights issues in Belarus and Cuba. Their statements have caused sharp responses from Minsk and Havana. Ukrainian diplomats, however, are hinting at further consequences of Ukraine’s democratic mission. Respect for democracy is a new feature of this state, and it will be systemic rather than spontaneous. According to our sources, the subject of democracy will be uppermost on the agenda of the GUUAM summit scheduled for April 22 in Chisinau (Moldova). In the following interview with The Day, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys TARASIUK comments on the Ukraine-US breakthrough and “democratic” differences with Belarus and Cuba.

BORYS TARASIUK: THE VISIT WASN’T A FESTIVE OCCASION

There are various opinions concerning Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to the United States. Most say it’s a breakthrough that has opened a new page in the annals of cooperation with Washington. Others, among them experts, have called this a festive rather than working, or official, visit. So are there any specific results of this festive occasion worth being discussed?

Tarasiuk: I wouldn’t describe it as a festive visit, as it involved rather intensive work; we actually didn’t have a minute to spare. As for the overall atmosphere of the meetings, festive probably best describes it, in the sense that the President of Ukraine was welcomed in Congress, in Chicago, Boston, and Georgetown University. In terms of concrete documented results, we have a joint statement that actually opens up new horizons for the Ukraine-U.S. strategic partnership. This joint statement offers conceptual assessments, plans, and specific aspects. For example, the U.S. will help Ukraine join the WTO this year, which is a very serious result. It can’t be regarded as just a clause of a given document. It implies U.S commitment involving very specific and massive work, including expert assistance in formalizing certain aspects of the final stage of Ukraine’s admission to the WTO, also a friendly attitude in solving problems concerning mutual economic relations; last but not least, it’s the U.S. president’s personal involvement. This is a very serious signal. Another result is the signing of a memorandum between the U.S. Eximbank and Ukraine’s Ukreximbank. This instrument provides for the creation of a line of credit guarantee to support exports, which will, of course, help boost our economic and trade relationships.

As a result of this visit, we received assurances from George Bush’s administration and the U.S. Congress that they will support Ukraine in carrying out our political and economic reforms. This is very important. Thus, no one doubts the need to annul the Jackson-Vanik Amendment or that Ukraine must have market economy status. Of course, there’s work to be done. The U.S. Congress must make certain decisions.

Without overstating the fact, we’ve opened a new page in the annals of Ukraine-U.S. relations. Before, our strategic partnership existed only on paper; today we can discuss its actual prospects as outlined in President Bush’s speech in Congress when he proposed eight basic points of cooperation. By the way, this proposal was upheld by the president and the Secretary of State. Both presidents instructed their agencies to work out and coordinate an Action Plan for the year 2005, which, among other things, provides for the training of Ukrainian students (some 2,000 in all).

The United States will also contribute $45 million toward the construction of a new shelter containment structure in Power Unit 4 in Chornobyl. This construction project has slowed down for lack of funds.

Another topic broached during the summit was the possibility of including Ukraine in the program “Challenges of the Millennium.” This is a huge program that envisages aid to countries combating corruption, trying to improve management, and so on. This is very relevant for us.

The main result is the resumption of a top-level dialogue between the two countries. You know that it was actually cut short in 2000. Now this dialogue has been resumed and it has a pleasant content. In other words, both presidents have established personal friendly contacts.

We can say that as a result of this visit, we have a great deal of trust credit from the American political community with regard to the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian state. This inspires hopes for the Ukraine-U.S. partnership.

Speaking of business results, particularly the intention to annul the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, obtaining market economy status, supporting Ukraine’s WTO membership — how firm are American intentions along these lines? Is there a possibility that Kyiv may face new requirements that will actually postpone the solutions to their problems?

Tarasiuk: You can’t call these conditions. For example, granting Ukraine market economy status, getting back to a normal trade regime can be possible only after certain steps have been taken by Ukraine — for example, enacting laws that would make the production of pirate CDs impossible.

This is a justifiable requirement. Here everything depends on Ukraine; it has to meet this requirement. Otherwise there will be no progress in terms of WTO membership or market economy status. As for the Jackson- Vanik Amendment, no requirements can be considered per se. Life itself has placed it outside the limits of normal relationships. It’s a matter of time and I’m convinced that this amendment will be annulled very soon. The U.S. Congress appears to have reached a consensus on the issue.

At present the doors of federal U.S. institutions are open for Ukraine, including Congress. Ukraine only needs to work out a clear and realistic stand and proceed to implement it. Ukraine won’t be faced with any prejudiced approaches or unrealistic conditions like before.

According to the presidents’ joint statement, the U.S. will help Ukraine enhance its cooperation with NATO, raising it to the Intensified Dialogue level. Could this happen during the ministerial meeting in Vilnius? How is the Ukrainian government likely to plan its official information policy to keep its citizens up to date about NATO? We all know that Ukraine’s NATO membership concept leaves much to be desired in terms of public support.

Tarasiuk: President Bush made it clear that he supports Ukraine’s NATO membership. At the same time, we remember that NATO doesn’t mean the United States only. Yet in knowing the situation and the alignment of forces within the alliance, the U.S. says in the joint statement that Ukraine will be raised to the Intensified Dialogue level. Realistically speaking, this approach involves a number of problems, simply because not all NATO countries support the idea, although we (and that includes me) are adopting measures to work out this problem in our contacts with colleagues, including NATO countries. Our goal is to have the issue finally agreed upon before the summit of NATO foreign ministers in Vilnius. We need to work actively in this direction, and we are working. I think it is quite realistic to expect that in Vilnius Ukraine will receive an invitation to commence the Intensified Dialogue program and that it will be a step forward, in the direction of the NATO membership plan.

You’re absolutely right in pointing out the low level of public support of Ukraine’s NATO membership. The reason is obvious. The previous regime, while declaring Ukraine’s intention to join NATO, actually took steps in the opposite direction. By the way, without any false modesty, I can state that I made every effort to convey the truth about Ukraine-EU- NATO relations to the general public, especially in the regions of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has worked out proposals and we’ll submit them to the president; these proposals are aimed at stepping up information work. When we held the roundtables at the Euro-Atlantic Cooperation Institute that I created, we usually commissioned polls. Their results, depending on the region, make it clear that most citizens are insufficiently informed about NATO. At the same time, over 80% respondents, regardless of the region, believe that they receive information from the national TV channels. What does this mean? It means that our national TV channels have failed to keep our society adequately informed. It means that there is serious work to be done.

We’re marking the second anniversary of the death of Ukrainian cameraman Taras Protsiuk in Iraq. Before visiting the United States, President Yushchenko instructed the Foreign Ministry to handle the issue (including compensations for the late journalist’s parents). Was the subject broached in Washington? What are you going to do?

Tarasiuk: The subject was broached during NSDC Secretary Petro Poroshenko’s visit to Iraq, also by the Ukrainian embassy and by me during my visit to Washington. We’re still waiting for the U.S. side’s response and we’re keeping an eye on the issue to make sure the U.S. responds to it in an adequate manner.

There’s another sensitive issue that caused a scandal in Ukraine, namely Kyiv and Washington’s reciprocal commitments to uphold democracy in Cuba and Belarus. The resultant public debate focused on the economic and political priorities that are involved. What is more important: upholding certain political interests or democratic values? Who is responsible for including a human rights clause in the laws of Cuba and Belarus. Which clause was added to the joint statement?

Tarasiuk: Indeed, the joint statement reads that the U.S. and Ukraine will cooperate in upholding liberties in countries, such as Cuba and Belarus. Here I’d like to explain what made Ukraine take this step. To begin with, the Orange Revolution was caused by the people’s protest not against the lack of food but because the government was openly scorning their right to elect the man they wanted as head of state. Hence all those protest actions aimed at making democracy reign supreme. The new government was actually brought to power by the people, who were hoping that the democratic principles of the Orange Revolution would be uppermost on the agenda. Actually, that’s what’s happening. The new government is trying to eradicate all the undemocratic trends that existed under Leonid Kuchma. However, foreign policy can only respond to this new constant value of Ukraine: democracy and the rule of law. When the U.S. side proposed to include these clauses in the joint statement, they were accepted mostly for the above reasons. Here doing anything contrary to any international commitments isn’t the point. There are a great many such commitments that every country must implement. A reminder of this doesn’t need explaining or being challenged as something contrary to international law.

We know that official Minsk has adopted a rather critical stand toward what came to pass in Kyiv. Havana responded by cutting short the deputy foreign minister’s visit to Kyiv this week. Did you foresee this kind of response?

Tarasiuk: I believe that the leaders of these countries have misinterpreted our emphasis on the issues of democracy and human rights. I also believe that their response is rather emotional. There’s nothing to prevent Havana’s cooperation with the European Union, although the EU does initiate and support resolutions on democracy in Cuba and Belarus. Belarus would love to cooperate with the European Union, despite the EU resolutions concerning that country. In fact, all the EU member states are in favor of devoting special attention to the state of democracy in Cuba and Belarus. Ukraine has declared that our objective is obtaining EU membership; even the previous regime wanted the EU vehicles to be extended to Ukraine in terms of accession to the EU’s declarations concerning all issues (including human rights), meaning that no one should be surprised at official Kyiv’s current stand. Ukraine is preparing to join the European Union, but this can’t be done on paper, as practiced by the previous regime, which constantly declared its intention to join the union while looking the other way when things happened, which in turn affected fundamental EU values and standards.

INCIDENTALLY

The United Social Democrats and Communists of Ukraine are sharply critical of President Viktor Yushchenko’s speech in the U.S. Congress; the same is true of the Ukrainian and U.S. presidential joint statement concerning Cuba and Belarus. SDP(U) MP Ihor Shurma said in an interview with Interfax Ukraine that what happened during Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to the U.S. was a “sequel to the Maidan rhetoric.” He added that “no one will attempt to make Ukraine competitive at the international level.” Communist MP Ihor Alekseyev said he was surprised to hear the Ukrainian and U.S. presidents’ joint statement on Cuba and Belarus, stressing that he views it as “further U.S. interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign Republic of Cuba.”