No Diktat, But Conditions Not Ruled Out
The American side could lay down a number of conditions before Ukraine when the US Congress considers a draft resolution on the abrogation of the Jackson-Vanick amendment. This was disclosed by Cochair of the US Congressional Group for Assistance to Ukraine Marcy Kaptur after her meeting with Ukraine’s Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh. She also specified possible conditions for Kyiv: to ensure religious freedom in Ukraine, to solve the issues of restitution and the problem of dumping of metal products, as well as “some economic issues that remain unsolved”.
In US-Ukrainian relations, the issue of cancellation of the Jackson- Vanick amendment is regarded as almost perpetually outstanding. The amendment was introduced in 1974 when the Cold War still raged. It provides for the imposition of discriminatory tariffs and duties if one country or another does not observe the civil right to freedom of movement. In particular, thirty years ago Washington was concerned about the USSR’s rigid system of issuing emigration permission to Jews. Since Ukraine gained independence, the amendment has not been canceled. However, every year the US President submitted to Congress his recommendation not to apply it to the post-Soviet states. The insistent requests from these countries that Washington completely give up the amendment never met a response. Ukraine had nothing left to do but wait for another annual approval of the president’s recommendations by Congress. It has become customary for Kyiv to declare that this “punishment” does not affect in any way its economic cooperation with the USA, although the Ukrainian leadership has occasionally complained about it. And only last year, after several statements by representatives of the US authorities, hopes appeared that the amendment would be repealed.
This week, a draft resolution on the abrogation of Jackson-Vanick for Ukraine will be submitted to the US Congress. Incidentally, according to Bob Shafer, one of those who initiated the draft resolution, it contains no conditions to be fulfilled by Ukraine for the abrogation of the amendment.
“It is unfounded and exaggerated” to consider the frequent visits of foreign guests during the election campaign a diktat. Yet, some conditions (even economic) could be imposed on Ukraine, when US Congress votes on the draft resolution to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which for almost thirty years has cast a shadow over Ukraine as a state failing to properly grant permission for emigration. These ideas and observations were spelled out at February 22 press conference by Republican US Congressman Bob Shafer, in the words of his press release, “one of the most active advocates of Ukraine and cochairman of the Ukraine support group,” who had been on a week long fact-finding tour of Ukraine. During his sojourn, the lawmaker pursued two goals: to tentatively study the election campaign and to rub shoulders with Ukrainian officials who were shown the draft law to repeal Jackson-Vanik. While everything is more or less clear about Mr. Shafer’s attitude toward the elections, the fate of the 1974 amendment passed against the Soviet Union remains vague.
He characterized his view of Ukrainian developments as “cautious optimism”, and explained his terms: Ukraine is supposedly moving in the right direction, but sometimes it encounters obstacles that come up for reasons absolutely beyond Ukraine’s control... One of these is the relative immaturity of Ukrainian democracy. In Mr. Shafer’s opinion, the United States and accordingly the elections of 1786 (ten years after winning independence) could also hardly be called democratic, but now the US is a “mature democracy.” Moreover, the congressman admitted that anomalies occur even in a “mature” one. For example, the US presidential elections in 2000, when the for several weeks the people were kept in suspense about who would lead their country. For this reason Mr. Shafer “would not agree that the Ukrainian parliamentary elections slated for March 31 will be the last democratic elections in the country.”
Obviously, it is the United States that is paying the closest attention of all countries to Ukraine’s election. And this is a problem for Ukraine itself: it is still unable to convince the world that each next election will be not a “decisive moment” but a normal democratic mechanism like in Poland, Estonia, or even Romania.
