Carlos Pascual: “When we structure our policy around individuals, it would not be good for anybody”
“What is your evaluation of Ukraine’s contribution to the anti-terrorist coalition?”
“This is not a test where we got marks. What we seek from our friends is sympathy, understanding, and willingness to work together. On many occasions Ukraine has displayed its good will: in opening its air space for military and humanitarian flights to Afghanistan, taking actions to crack down potential finance networks of terrorists, and sharing very important intelligence information that can help us to prevent the future terrorist acts.
“Does Ukraine possess such information?”
“Absolutely; Ukraine’s intelligence works actively and it has its own networks.”
“Many experts stress significant geopolitical changes in the world after September 11. Obviously, the process of these changes has not completed yet. Which of them could directly affect Ukraine?”
“Perhaps most significant geopolitical change that has occurred since September 11 and has a direct impact on Ukraine is the increased cooperation between the United States and Russia. There was a time when many analysts, including in Ukraine, sought to present a direct conflict in strategic interests between the United States and Russia. Since September 11 we’ve seen American and Russian strategic interest converge, as indicated in our cooperation in antiterrorist campaign and the development of NATO-Russia council. I believe that this has created opportunities for Ukraine. There was a time when some political figures argued that it was impossible for Ukraine to draw closer to the West because this will antagonize Russia. As Russia itself is driving closer to the West, this argument simply becomes irrelevant. This does not mean that we will not have differences with Russia — we do. But I think that people in Russia and the United States understand that one can have those differences and still have relationship, which is genuine, stable, and productive.”
“What position would Washington expect from Ukraine concerning the Iraq question?”
“As a minimum we would expect Ukraine to abide by the UN sanctions against Iraq. Beyond that, it’s up to Ukraine to determine what is appropriate for your country and to Ukrainian people.”
“There was a broad discus
sion in the mass media on the rumors of Ukraine’s illegal arms deliveries to Iraq. The United States announced that it conducts an investigation into this issue. Could you clarify this issue finally?”
“First I would clarify why we are concerned. There is no doubt that Iraq seeks to obtain sensitive military technologies. Ukraine has these technologies, and we have no doubt that Iraq will seek to obtain them. At this point we have no proof that there have been military transfers from Ukraine to Iraq. But given the sensitivity of the issue and Iraq’s intentions, we will obviously continue the investigation. We are also very interested in Ukraine’s own investigations which President Kuchma promised Ukraine will take on July 9 when he met NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson. Any time such allegations arise regarding cooperation with such countries as Iraq or Iran, we investigate them completely.”
“Political scientists note that the US interest to Ukraine has significantly changed during George Bush’s presidential term. Could you give a brief description of the relations between Kyiv and Washington in the times of Clinton and Bush presidencies?”
“The policy of both administrations is exactly the same, and that is to support democratic and market oriented Ukraine, integrated with Europe. Since the end of 2000 Ukraine has been involved in a number of controversial issues: Gongadze’s murder, tape scandal, the downing of the Siberian air flight, arms transfer to Macedonia, allegations of weapons delivery to Iraq. As is natural in any human relationship, when you begin it in a face of such turmoil, it’s necessary to first renew trust. For this reason we sought to identify concrete actions that we can take in our relationship and which Ukraine can take in key areas: political reform, economical reform, defense reform, etc. That can become a foundation for greater trust, for deeper and closer relationship. The best way to create such relations is to demonstrate that this relationship can give real results for both sides.”
“Is fruitful cooperation possible between the current leaders of Ukraine and the United States?”
“This is not an issue of cooperation with individuals; it’s an issue of two countries seeking to achieve what is best for their national interests. The policies between countries have to be established on the basis of what is good for those countries. When we structure our policy around individuals, it would fluctuate and would not be consistent, and that would not be good for anybody.”
“How did Washington perceive the statement by President of Ukraine on constitutional changes towards parliamentary-presidential republic and proportional electoral system?”
“This is a question for Ukrainian people to decide. There are examples of strong pro-presidential democracies and pro-parliamentary ones. But the points that we would stress are generally recognized. The most successful governments are those that are accountable to their people. As Ukraine further develops the details of its Constitution, it’s important that Ukrainian people have an opportunity to discuss this.”
“Few days ago you said that whether Leonid Kuchma meets George Bush during NATO’s Prague summit this should not be considered a signal for Ukraine. Does this mean that the
leaders will not have a meeting?”
“Let me explain the context of my statement. It came as a response for the question from a journalist who was seeking to interpret one meeting as a broad statement on the US policy towards Ukraine. That would be simply inaccurate. Whether or not there will be such meeting, I’m not in a position to say at this point.”
“Does Washington support Ukraine’s intentions to start the intensified dialog with NATO?”
“As long ago as in July we stated very clearly that we support the goal of working toward an ultimately intensified dialog between NATO and Ukraine at the Prague summit. We also made very clear our belief that the foundation of such dialog should be a substantive and practical work plan between NATO and Ukraine. That work plan is currently under discussion in Brussels between the members of NATO and Ukraine’s representatives. And of course it is important to remember that NATO operates as a consensus organization and the decision we take would be a decision that reflexes the will of all nineteen members.”
“Some candidates for NATO membership were able to skip the stage of intensified dialog and immediately joined the Membership Actions Plan (MAP). Does Ukraine have such a chance?”
“NATO is a highly predictable organization. Most countries that seek to receive membership first come through an intensified dialog and then some of them have an opportunity to move up to Membership Action Plan. Finland and Sweden went through the intensified dialog and decided not to become members. Croatia recently completed the intensified dialog and went from that to Membership Action Plan. I believe that NATO has given Ukraine very clear roadmap on its steps forward.”
“Is it possible that Washington becomes Ukraine’s lobbyist in its striving for integration to the Euro-Atlantic structures?”
“What happens inside of the doors of NATO is for those who are inside NATO to know, and what happens outside it will always be presented in a single place.”
