President Bush to visit Kyiv

There is a strong possibility that President George Bush will visit Ukraine, most likely before the NATO summit in Bucharest scheduled for April 2-4. The US president said he wanted to visit Ukraine two years ago, and he received an invitation from President Viktor Yushchenko in March 2006. At the time it was expected that the visit could take place before the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg (July 2006). After attending the gathering (June 21- 22), Bush chose to visit Budapest, not Kyiv, to take part in festivities commemorating the Hungarian Uprising against the Soviet military presence. Officially, the US president’s visit to Ukraine was canceled because of complications connected to the formation of Ukraine’s coalition and government.

Official Kyiv, summing up 2006, noted that one of Ukraine’s losses that year was the cancellation of the US president’s visit to Kyiv. Foreign Minister Borys Tarasiuk declared: “This is a great loss for Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policy.”

Rumors have been spreading about Bush’s, including about the alleged date of April 1. No one refuted them officially or otherwise until Thursday night, March 13, when the visit was officially — and almost simultaneously — confirmed by the White House and President Yushchenko, who was visiting Brussels. The statement by the Press Secretary of the White House reads: “The President and Mrs. Bush will travel to Ukraine, Romania, and Croatia in April 2008 to support the advance of freedom and democracy and to strengthen the NATO Alliance to confront 21st century challenges. The President will have a bilateral program in Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 1, 2008, including meetings with the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine.”

According to President Yushchenko, his US counterpart will pay an official visit to Ukraine on March 31 — April 1. The Ukrainian head of state told journalists that his talks with Bush will include a Ukraine-US action plan for 2008-09, and “...perhaps a basic instrument will be signed,” said Ukraine’s president.

US embassy officials in Kyiv are not sure about the duration of President Bush’s visit to Kyiv or what issues will be discussed when the US and Ukrainian presidents meet. The embassy official with whom I spoke recalled President Bill Clinton’s visit in 2000 and said that everything will be firmed up a few days before the visit.

Undoubtedly, the main subject to be discussed by the two heads of states will be Ukraine’s accession to the Membership Action Plan during the NATO summit in April. The Americans don’t seem to require much persuasion to recognize the expediency of this move. However, many experts stress that everything depends on Ukraine and the way it is keeping its promises and honoring its commitments, particularly in regard to the adoption and implementation of the Ukraine-NATO Action Plan. For reasons best known to himself, our president still has not signed the action plan for 2008. Another aspect, perhaps the most important one, is that only the Ukrainian government can persuade its population to support the idea of NATO membership.

The US president, following the lead of several European leaders, is likely to pose similar questions to Ukraine’s political leadership. On the other hand, Ukrainians will then be able to pose some questions to their leaders, asking whether they had made the best possible use of the visit of the head of the world’s most powerful state.

How important is the US president’s visit to Ukraine in view of our domestic situation? Will this visit help Ukraine join the MAP in Bucharest? What must the Ukrainian political leadership accomplish before the April summit to reach this goal?

COMMENT

Yevhen KAMINSKY, head of a department at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations, Kyiv:

If we are only talking about the MAP, George Bush declared on March 6 that he has his own Medvedev - McCain. This means that the American president will visit Ukraine primarily in terms of the MAP. On the other hands, will this help us improve the situation in Bucharest? I don’t think so. Bush has opponents in Western Europe, above all in Germany. Under the circumstances, if our leadership, particularly our president, reaches an agreement with Bush, this will spark further differences within NATO among the key summit participants.

Second, I don’t think that this visit should be restricted to the MAP topic. If it is - there is no way to deny that possibility - this visit will not amount to anything. Many problems have accumulated in our bilateral relations, first of all, the issue of the intergovernmental commission, which includes a number of economic questions and a separate one concerning investments. Unless all these issues are resolved, we will find ourselves vis-a-vis Russia in all aspects that are especially important for Ukraine. Today the key issue is not MAP but whether Ukraine will become a member of NATO. This may happen in five, seven, even ten years. Today economic, trade, investment, and energy issues are more important for us. Without headway there, MAP won’t give us anything either. Unless we have the MAP and solutions to the above- mentioned problems, we will reduce support for the NATO membership idea among our population. It is very important for this visit not to be restricted to the Membership Action Plan.

As for the Ukrainian president’s statements about signing a basic Ukraine-US action plan for 2008-09, we have signed a great many instruments. We should take a look at this particular document. If this action plan has clauses stating that Ukraine will receive 17 billion dollars’ worth of investments in 2008-09, it should be approved. If this plan envisages a series of talks between the presidents of both countries or if it has a separate clause reading that Ukraine will enter another round of talks on investments and the energy sphere with the newly elected US president, that will be utterly useless. This action plan must be absolutely concrete. Ungrounded action plans do not yield results. I was absolutely unimpressed by Viktor Yushchenko’s visit to the United States in the spring of 2005. Nothing has changed in Ukraine- US relations since then.

As for the conflict between our president and prime minister, this has no meaning for the American president. He is not interested. He may have a vague idea about the situation. Therefore, this problem will not bother him. The relations between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko are the internal relations of one branch of government, the executive branch. This is not a decisive factor. But the relations between parliament and the president and parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers may play a major role. Americans are primarily concerned about parliament adopting arrangements or agreements that have been made; whether the coalition — including the constitutional one —will support them. This is what the American side is interested in. And a government, even a parliament, can be replaced. I am personally impressed by what our government is doing. Reading the American press, I think that the US is also impressed by the actions of our government, perhaps more than the actions of the highest political leadership of our state.

A number of US experts believe that the Ukrainian government is more effective, and the results of its performance over the first 100 days are obvious. It should be noted that influential US leaders feel very positive about the agreement that was signed last Thursday between Naftohaz Ukrainy and Russia’s Gazprom. This has nothing to do with the Ukrainian and Russian presidents’ meeting. At any rate, I haven’t spotted any connection in the past couple of days.

As for the “lame duck” visit of the American president, Bush has a successor whom he appointed on March 6, when he announced that he will do everything to help John McCain win: whether it will be necessary to criticize or praise him, or remain silent. That is to say, Bush’s visit to Ukraine is like an element of McCain’s election campaign. I don’t reject the possibility that McCain may join the US delegation to Ukraine; that fits his ideology. Since the next big primary will be held only on April 22 in Pennsylvania, he can find five or six days if he believes that it will be useful for him to accompany Bush to Kyiv.

Yurii SHCHERBAK , former Ukrainian Ambassador to the US:

I think this visit comes too late. Bush is a “lame duck” and not a very influential person, even in the US. So in my view, his visit will not change anything. But there is one piece of good news that he could bring: if the NATO summit in Bucharest granted MAP status to Ukraine and the possibility of starting out on the path to joining NATO. As far as we know, right now the members of the Alliance have great doubts about whether to grant this status to Ukraine and Georgia. There is a lot of opposition from Russia, which is influencing Germany and France. So a positive decision about the MAP would be quite important for Ukraine.

In addition, it is important that the American president will see Ukraine and familiarize himself with our country’s problems, although I must note that it was during Bush’s term that the Ukrainian- American strategic partnership became lost in the paperwork if not canceled outright. It was not at the top of the US agenda. This is understandable, considering that the war against terrorism and the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan dominated American foreign policy. Then relations between the US and the countries of so-called old Europe worsened, and the Americans’ position was harshly criticized by its European allies, who did not support the war in Iraq. So the Americans had a lot of their own problems and no time for Ukraine.

Nevertheless, we should welcome President Bush hospitably, because despite his shortcomings and the divided judgments of history, we still have good relations with the United States of America, which should receive a boost. I am convinced that after the US elections, no matter who becomes president, a Democrat or a Republican, we know that much more attention will be devoted to Ukraine than during Bush’s administration.

It is quite possible that Bush will sharpen NATO’s debate on Ukraine’s MAP status, as the influential British newspaper The Financial Times writes. The thing is that Bush is regarded in a variety of ways. Eventually his role and influence in the international community registered a dramatic decline. He is a president who will soon step down owing to objective circumstances. Indeed, his insistence or obtrusiveness may play a bad role. In other words, it is possible that these countries will take a more rigid and irreconcilable stand, contrary to Bush’s policy or rhetoric, which is bad for Ukraine. This will strongly encourage the opponents of Ukraine’s NATO membership - primarily Russia and Ukraine’s pro-Russian anti-NATO opposition. Then there will be much gloating over our bad luck. We cannot rule out this possibility. The Financial Times is an expert in the field and was closely following the reactions of the key EU member countries that are opposed to Ukraine’s membership. Therefore, the summit in Bucharest will be anything but simple. However, I am convinced that a formula will be found. They know how to make very elastic formulas without actually giving you anything. This is the kind of game being played by the European Union in the first place, whereas NATO is conducting this policy in a more defined manner. It is keeping its doors open. They also know how to create elastic formulas that will greet Ukraine and George’s will to become NATO members; they are always prepared to help, but they will demand fulfillment of commitments. A formula may well be created that will not be offensive to us. It will actually contain a refusal, but it will be diplomatically flexible. I believe this option is most likely one.

I think that the formula whereby NATO membership is granted only if the people of a given country want it is dangerous. It is like a fig leaf concealing the government and opposition; no one wants to have the final say. Our government obviously doesn’t want to add to the tensions surrounding the NATO issue — naturally with an eye to the next presidential campaign. The opposition and the Party of Regions, considering their belief that they will soon come to power, do not want to sever all relations with NATO. They want to leave a “corridor” for themselves, which is precisely this national consensus admission formula. It is anyone’s guess whether 51 percent of the vote in parliament will be enough. No one has determined the threshold of confidence in NATO; no one knows the current dynamics. I believe it is important for the government and president to make statements indicating their resolve with regard to Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Slovakia’s experience shows that the level of confidence in the Alliance can be raised very high. This can be done rather quickly in the presence of a strong political will. Therefore, I don’t think that the situation can be essentially altered within a month because all the positions are set. There is a formal statement to which a response must be given. This places the countries that have to respond to it in a rather difficult situation. It is always difficult to respond to a statement rather than to some words or wishes. As for the Ukrainian government, it must determine its stand and provide arguments for the people, for Ukrainian society, for the European community of nations, explaining why Ukraine must become a member of NATO.