From Letter of the Four to Article of the Two: One Step Forward
The Washington Quarterly and Politychna dumka carried the article “Ukraine’s Bid for a Decisive Place in History” (http://www.twq.com/ 02 winter/pascual.htm) by Stephen Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine, currently assistant deputy to the Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs, and Carlos Pascual, current US ambassador. The article appeared when Ukrainian-US top-level political contacts had been practically nonexistent for a year and a half; instead, US economic sanctions have been imposed on Ukraine, this being not the best of examples of strategic partnership. Articles about countries are seldom written by ambassadors, politicians, or ranking officials. Sometimes such an article is an attempt to understand a given country. In other cases it is an attempt to set the tone in the political domain or just a response to some phenomena or another, with the author sharing his personal impressions.
This article, written by two ambassadors, is unusual. First, because it is not kept in the traditional diplomatic style. It is quite straightforward. Its subheadings “A National Transformation,” “Ten Tumultuous Years of Change,” “The Ups and Downs of the New Millennium,” “The Question of Russia,” “Gongadze Case”, “March 2002 Parliamentary Elections,” “Restoration of Energy Reform,” etc are all evidence that the authors did a lot of homework and did it well; they list Ukrainian attainments, setbacks, disillusionment, and tasks. The closing subheading, “Chances,” appears quite symbolic. The main thing is the message itself, of course. It is about what has to be done. It is nothing new, as much has been spoken and written on the subject. In a nutshell, Ukraine must follow the right course (democratic system, market economy, freedom of the press, and the supremacy of the law). If it does this, its relative isolation will be replaced by a degree of acknowledgment. The key points, as highlighted by the authors, are nothing new, either: fair elections, investigation of the Gongadze case, independent judiciary, transparent natural gas transactions, and privatization. What is new is that the notion of oligarchs used by the diplomats for the first time, although the authors do not propose to combat it.
All this looks as another reminder to the US and Ukrainian reader (both editions are intended for decision-making, academic, and expert readers) of precisely what the United States expects from Ukraine. The whole things looks very much like a big brother’s friendly advise, not as an interference in another country’s internal affairs. Everything Messrs. Pifer and Pascual have to say, just as everything Ukrainian leaders have been told by Western politicians, has its reasons; due to some or other reasons the process is very difficult, so that now and then it really needs a fresh impetus, preferably from within rather than without, of course.
The US ambassadors’ article looks altogether different from the Letter of Four in late 2000, now almost forgotten, written in support of Premier Yushchenko, signed by Stephen Pifer, then US ambassador to Ukraine, his Canadian counterpart, and chairmen of the EBRD and World Bank representation in Ukraine, in a style akin to ultimatum.
The article is, of course, a factor of bilateral relations, evidence that Washington is closely following the situation in Ukraine, especially now that elections are approaching. It is not likely to work as an attempt to teach the Ukrainian leadership how to live right, for no such previous attempts have had the desired effect. Yet this article — or rather its reverberations — could change the tone of certain publications and create a different atmosphere in the top level decision- making realm. This change can be both ways, making things still worse or at least returning to previous positions. The authors conclude that the course of events is in Ukraine’s favor.
On the whole, the ambassadors’ article leaves one with a strong impression that the game is just beginning. The United States has made a pass. The question is who will respond on the Ukrainian side, doing so adequately, at a proper level, so as to a make a precise pass in return, for this will help develop positive relationships. The Ukrainian executive proved totally unprepared to do just that — responding quickly and achieving consensus — a year and a half ago.
The following are commentaries on the US ambassadors’ article.
Serhiy TOLSTOV, director, Institute for International Analysis and Political Research:
The appearance of that article signed by two authors should not be regarded as too much of a surprise, because both Pifer and Pascual were appointed by the previous US administration and both must have consulted, of course. There are few political experts on Ukraine in America, and Pifer remains actively in circulation as both a consultant and expert.
Another thing is that the article marks a certain turning point. It seems to formulate guidelines and approaches previously left ambiguous and lacking systematization. Previously we heard certain hints like show us that you can act on your own and set up the right kind of institutions, develop your market economy, secure democracy and freedom of expression. On the other hand, it is possible to assume that Washington has not had a comprehensive political program with regard to Ukraine since 1998. I would even say that Pifer’s and Pascual’s article is a harbinger of a clearer stand taken by the Republican administration; it is a scenario of sorts. Yet it does not mean that US political recommendations, concerning a definite foreign political trend, are formed the way CPSU congress resolutions were with a preamble, introduction, conclusion, political significance, and so on. What the Americans offer are rather platforms including important and minor issues. Within these platforms certain economic discrepancies are of minor importance; they must be settled with an eye to priorities.
In the immediate future we will have indirect evidence of the US stand concerning Ukraine. If Washington goes easy on trade differences and import restrictions, it will mean a softer US stand with regard to Ukraine, at least before the election turnout, lest aggravate trade relationships have a negative impact on the election campaign, for this would only strengthen anti- American sentiments in Ukraine, thus playing in the hand of all those campaigning against the West.
Hryhory NEMYRIA, director, Center for European and International Studies, Institute of International Relations:
I would single out what I’m inclined to regard as two key theses in the article. First, the United States has to adhere to a long-term strategy with regard to Ukraine without ignoring current events. The authors believe that it will be easier to cope with the task if an integrated and consistent long-term strategy is developed. I think that this principle concerns not only Ukrainian domestic policy. In a broader sense it addresses changes in the international arena. This is very important, as we have on more than one occasion heard experts insisting that Ukraine lost its strategic importance to America after September 11, 2001 and that Washington is building new relationships with Moscow as one of the leading members of the international coalition against terrorism.
Second, Ukraine is supposed to stand a fair chance to take decisive steps toward democracy and market economy, deepening its integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. The level of institutional preparedness, the quality of the political process, and the degree of public support — these are the most important parameters when taking such steps. I must agree with the authors that Ukraine’s becoming European depends on free and fair elections, freedom of the press, unbiased courts of law, effective taxation, along with the certainty and supremacy of the law.
Everybody in Ukraine, politicians as well as rank-and-file citizens, should realize this it is both a great opportunity and tremendous responsibility. This choice is being tested not at international conference and loose-tie meetings. It is actually tested by details of a domestic policy that is supposed to be more transparent and flexible.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the authors are the former and current US ambassadors to Ukraine, which is evidence of political continuity. Incidentally, that same magazine issue (Washington Quarterly —Ed.) contains stories about Russia, Baltic States, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The Ukrainian reader would find it of interest to read them, to know which of the former Soviet republics has made better use of the past decade of independence.
Vadym KARASEV, political scientist:
The very fact of an article written by two noted US diplomats influential in the realm of US foreign policy, concerning relatively young post-Soviet democracies, can be regarded as proof that Washington is inclined to revise the geopolitical deal, the agreement or course concerning Ukraine. Of course, it means more than just these two strategic partners; it can be projected onto the broader post- Soviet, even international terrain.
The authors address Ukraine not so much from a parental stand as from one facing an established state, one capable of waging a predictable, comprehensible, and independent policy. It means recognition of the fact that Ukraine is a permanent geopolitical entity. Also, it means that Ukraine’s foreign political and political elite as a whole must rely not only on external outwardly symbolic or tangible sponsorship, but also and mostly on a domestically constructed foreign policy doctrine.
The geopolitical move made by the two US diplomats can be further evidence that Ukraine must count only on its own resources in the modern revised world order, given the new regional and global geopolitical alignment of forces; that Ukraine should rely on building sound mutual relations along the entire perimeter of its global and regional interests. This might be followed by adjustments in the conception of US-Ukrainian strategic partnership. Instead of unconditional strategic partnership, Washington is starting to put forth the concept of critical partnership, meaning a transition to a responsible implementation of such partnership at the current stage. Critical because such partnership comprises strict observance of all clauses of the deal and protection of one’s own interests. This is proof that the paternalistic phase in US- Ukrainian relationships is history. Playing chicken as an acute issue in those relationships indicates precisely a new pattern of strategic contacts. The reverse side is that Ukraine must not regard America as its geopolitical sponsor — and this is also true of other countries, Russia included.
