“I Must Go There”
“US-Ukrainian relations are now perhaps at the most difficult stage since 1993” is how Steven Pifer, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, assessed the current situation after meeting in Kyiv with Yevhen Marchuk, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council; Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the Presidential Administration; Oleksandr Chaly, State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Dmytro Tabachnyk, chair of the Verkhovna Rada committee for international affairs; Heorhy Kriuchkov, chair of the national security and defense committee; as well as media and NGO representatives.
In his words, the top Ukrainian leadership faces a credibility gap. This is for the first time that such a wording was openly pronounced by a US government official. Mr. Pifer said, “We must do our best to overcome this crisis” and suggested using the existent channels of communication. The latter comprise ministerial-level contacts (he said the recent visit of Defense Minister Gen. Shkidchenko to the United States was very successful), the committees that branched out of the Kuchma-Gore Commission, and various programs of aid, military cooperation, exchanges, the upgrading of Ukraine-NATO cooperation, Ukraine’s further rapprochement with the Euro-Atlantic institutions, including NATO.
It is common knowledge what caused the latest crisis in the relations. Mr. Pifer noted at the press conference that the Kolchuha radar sales issue was just a small part of his Kyiv discussions. Yet, this is precisely the tip of the iceberg, and it is this issue that the Western press has been focusing on lately. The United States lacks sufficient evidence that any Kolchuha systems were or were not supplied to Iraq (“we do have certain information but have no confirmation”), Mr. Pifer said. There is no question of the presumption of innocence: the diplomat says the problem lies in the sphere of international relations, not of law. In other words, it is primarily political. Mr. Pifer stressed again that Washington considers authentic the recorded conversation between Kuchma and Malev, in which the former allegedly approved the Kolchuha sale operation. He also recalled that the recording was analyzed by the world’s best experts. Now the US demands that Ukraine say whether Mr. Kuchma and Mr. Malev met on July 10, 2000 (the day the recording was made). This is one of the additional questions the expert group put to Ukraine. According to the diplomat, the expert’s report does not put all the blame on Ukraine. It only says no sufficient information was furnished as to whether or not the Kolchuha systems were delivered to Iraq and whether Ukraine has an export control system which would rule out this kind of delivery. Although there is no question of a deadline for Ukraine to answer the additional questions, it would be good if this was done as soon as possible. Mr. Pifer was very reluctant to deliberate on the questions put to Kyiv. Yet, he did say something, for example, “we would like to know the way the Kolchuha works,” i.e., to gain access to its performance. The diplomat confirmed the experts wanted to speak to Derkach and Orshansky and said Washington still hopes this will happen. He also noted that, although Ukraine furnished information on the quantity of the Kolchuha systems produced, deployed in Ukraine, and exported to other countries, this was not enough. Mr. Pifer said there must also be evidence that the buyer had no intention of transferring over the systems to other countries. So he in fact confirmed that Kyiv was asked to produce the documentation covering its deals with Russia and China, assuring the audience that “we do not attempt to get any information that could jeopardize the relations of Ukraine with its partners.” In addition, Washington insists that experts be given access to the export control committee’s documentation. It was here that the Ukrainian side failed to show the promised open cooperation with the expert group — on the contrary, it resorted to “evasions,” Mr. Pifer claimed.
As to Ukraine’s request to raise this question in the UN Security Council, Mr. Pifer said the main thing is to ensure an effective investigation. He said, “It is not quite clear to us what opportunities Committee 661 will get to conduct an inquiry.” As Ambassador Pascual said, if Security Council experts get the same answers as the group of US and British experts did, this will make no sense.
The point is, in his opinion, that either the US-British expert group or Security Council experts should gain access to the export control committee’s documents. In any case, this somewhat differs in tone from the previous statement by US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher. As to the likely consequences for Ukraine, this is so far a matter of speculation, Mr. Pifer said.
By far the most interesting point which raises questions for both Washington and Kyiv is that all these queries were put, according to Mr. Pifer, not after the experts had released their report but at the end of their stay in Ukraine. No other official representative of Washington, London, as well as Kyiv, has said this before. The response of Ukrainian leaders did and does force one to admit that they speak out far from all that they know and very often shift and put wrong accents.
Obviously, it is the Kolchuha scandal that prompted the North Atlantic Council to downgrade the NATO-Ukraine Commission session during the NATO Prague summit to the level of foreign ministers. Kyiv has not yet announced its decision on this point. President Kuchma said he would go to Prague, but then Mr. Orel, Deputy Chairman of the Presidential Administration, announced that no decision had been made yet. It is also known that Foreign Minister Zlenko discussed the format of Ukrainian participation with NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson but gave him no clear reply. Nor were any answers given to Mr. Pifer. The latter thinks, though, that Minister Zlenko must go to Prague if Ukraine really strives to move toward NATO. Mr. Pifer also noted in this connection that he discussed the question of President Kuchma’s likely visit to Prague — but “this is all I can say.”
According to Ambassador Pascual, the new Ukraine-NATO action plan and the annual task force plan drawn up for the NATO-Ukraine Commission’s session could lay the groundwork for a new likely format of relations between Ukraine and the alliance. This comment undoubtedly sets a positive tone.
What also does is that according to Mr. Pifer, the United States considers that Ukraine should be struck off the list of countries subject to the Jackson-Vanik amendment (the amendment to the Trade Act that restricts trade with the countries that fail to ensure freedom of emigration). That the amendment is an anachronism was said long ago. Now, in Mr. Pifer’s words, Congress is going to debate this matter in January, but it would be good to take some practical steps before that date. As US Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual noted, Ukraine should first be certified as meeting the requirements.
This is a clear signal. The United States does not want further deterioration in relations, while still unambiguously bent on downgrading the contacts. The Kolchuha affair is just an illustrative example of string-pulling and obligation-ignoring in the world. For what created a crisis situation in the relations is not the Kolchuha story and not even the Melnychenko tapes. Some phrases of US officials suggest that Washington calls the juridical, not political, side of the problem into question. But this does not mean that Kyiv should not muster the courage to show an adequate reaction in order to do away with the Kolchuha problem.
The results of the early stage of the deliberation of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko’s letter to the UN Security Council, requesting that Committee 661 study the situation with Ukraine’s alleged sales of the Kolchuha early warning system to Iraq, may become known today. Mr. Zlenko addressed his message to the Chairman of the UN Security Council on Saturday and the hearings were to start last night (Kyiv time). It is reported that the hearings may last between three and six months.
Anatoly Zlenko’s letter stresses that Ukraine cannot accept the expert findings reading that this country failed to provide convincing evidence of not selling Kolchuha to Iraq. According to the Foreign Ministry’s press service, Mr. Zlenko believes that the matter must be finally resolved by the Security Council as a body having the exclusive prerogative of levying sanctions. In addition to his message, the Ukrainian foreign minister sent a comprehensive report on the US and British experts’ visit to Ukraine. The document, he is convinced, makes it clear that the experts were supplied enough data to be satisfied that Ukraine has not violated the UN sanctions against Iraq. In a commentary for Interfax Ukraine, Mr. Zlenko also noted that UN involvement would serve the interests of Ukraine and the United States. Washington had publicly questioned Ukraine’s openness and Mr. Zlenko stressed that such doubts were totally unfounded. Since “both the United States and Ukraine are interested parties under the circumstances,” in order to “establish the truth a third party is required.” Should the US and UK use their veto right to block the hearings, the foreign minister believes that “this could mean two things: either the United States is not interested in establishing the truth, or it does not want to admit to unfounded accusations.”
The situation is complicated by giving rise to countless questions addressing both parties. Ukraine’s promised openness ought to have been complete. Perhaps everything would have been different, had the president [of Ukraine] made a public statement, saying that there had been “no discussion” [of the Kolchuha deal]. Since he never did, suspicions are mounting and diplomatic means [of settling the conflict] are dwindling.
There are weak aspects to the US stand, specifically the fact of military and technological cooperation between Yugoslavia and Iraq which, unlike Ukraine’s alleged sales, has been proved with documentary evidence. Still, nothing has happened. This is hard to consider other than double standards. Experts are in no hurry to ascertain data they are interested in by contacting Russia, China, and Ethiopia — which would stand to logic if they really wanted to know the precise number of Kolchuha radar systems made and sold, from the standpoint of the buyer’s liability.
This, however, does not mean that Ukraine can afford a confrontation with the United States, at least not in the current situation.
INCIDENTALLY
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steven Pifer has announced a competition of projects aimed at promoting freedom of the press and respect for human rights in Ukraine. Competitors are to inform the public on the international standards of press freedom and human rights. The total amount of resources furnished by the Democratic Grants program and the US Embassy’s Ukrainian Media Development Fund is $300,000 . The contest will only be accepting projects from non-governmental and nonprofit organizations, as well as the independent media. The US Embassy in Ukraine is going to finance one or two projects in each of Ukraine’s oblasts. Projects will be received until December 5, 2002.
