US Ambassador Pascual doesn’t think refusing to cooperate is expedient
US Ambassador Carlos Pascual declared that the United States has been and will remain a friend of Ukraine, addressing an audience at the European University, Thursday, December 12. It was his first public appearance after a two-week interval when he and British Ambassador Robert Brinkley met with journalists November 26 to present the US-UK expert findings on the Kolchuga issue (the experts were unable to ascertain whether the notorious early warning systems had found their way to Iraq). It was also the US diplomat’s first appearance before the media after his previous week’s visit to Washington where he said changes in the US policy with regard to Ukraine were still being analyzed. The timeout was eloquent evidence that Kyiv’s diplomatic counteroffensive was not successful, mildly speaking, and that the operation was of no consequence, for what is happening now is a mirror reflection of what happened a month ago.
Mr. Pascual’s public appearance was interesting primarily because it was actually the last one in 2002 (a couple of weeks before Christmas and New Year). The main points in what he had to say were not things everybody knew, which he repeated nevertheless, but several tough albeit diplomatically phrased statements. Thus, he pointed out that Ukraine is lagging behind its own Euro-Atlantic aspirations, that it has at best stayed put, that a whole year has been wasted in carrying out the political reform. Needless to say, the Kolchuga scandal only served to aggravate the crisis of confidence in Ukraine at the highest political level. Mr. Pascual also mentioned the Gongadze and Aleksandrov cases, still unsolved.
He said that the United States and Ukraine are faced with two alternatives in developing their relationships. First, active cooperation. Second, discarding a deeper-going interaction. The later would not serve the interests of the United States, Ukraine, or that kind of Europe we all hope to build, he stressed.
Last Monday, a team of US military met with their Chinese counterparts (for the first time in the past eighteen months). They discussed Taiwan and Iraq. Why not discuss Kolchuga? Perhaps the 661 Committee will have an answer, considering that it handles all cases involving sanctions against Iraq, yet there is a fair chance that the committee’s findings, even if in Kyiv’s favor, will not satisfy Washington and London.
From the key points highlighted by Mr. Pascual follows that (a) Washington does not consider the Kolchuga case closed, meaning it is still a problem; (b) this case is not all there is to US-Ukrainian relationships at present, meaning that bilateral cooperation prospects have to be taken into account; (c) there is a degree of disillusionment about reforms in Ukraine, yet the West is still prepared to show Kyiv its support. In fact, Mr. Pascual said that, regardless of the outcome of the Kolchuga investigation, restoring confidence would remain the most important task because it is necessary for the development and upholding of lasting and meaningful relationships.
Another interesting aspect: the US ambassador mentioned Washington’s response to Ukraine opposing a meeting between Ukrainian Defense Minister Shkidchenko and his US counterpart Rumsfeld in January. In his own words, the US attitude was that of approval and even active support [for such meeting]. He added that the United States would be willing to receive First Vice Premier Azarov at the highest level in January. In other words, the Ukrainian leadership was told not to get hysterical, on the one hand, and on the other, Mr. Pascual admitted that a meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents is not on the agenda at this stage. Meaning that Washington has set course on isolating the Ukrainian head of state, which is supported by most EU countries, and does not intend to deviate from it. Legally speaking, there are not many grounds for this stand — and Washington admits as much — meaning that moral and political considerations come first.
Ambassador Pascual also said that Congress takes a dim view of the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy’s failure to allow registration of the projects worked out by the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute (led by ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright), after a year of talks. Congress believes it shows that Ukraine is afraid of transparency. In this and several other cases official Kyiv has behaved in a manner reminding one of the recent Soviet past, not of a modern democracy.
Washington’s undisguised disillusionment about Kyiv has caused a number of analysts to voice concern; now that Russian-US relationships have shown a considerable degree of improvement, coinciding in time with the cassette scandal in Ukraine, and later with the Kolchuga one, Washington (and the European Union and NATO) regards Moscow as a key partner in this region, and that president Bush has “surrendered” Ukraine to the Kremlin just as his father tried to do, urging Ukraine to remain in the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, people in Washington say (as has been often stressed by Ambassador Pascual) that they support Ukraine’s movement toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration, provided this is (in Mr. Pascual’s words) a sincere choice, without any conditions and reservations. He declared that it is for Ukraine to decide whether it should proceed toward Euro-Atlantic integration. Obviously, no one is going to pressure Kyiv for showing more cooperation with some or other countries. At the same time, Mr. Pascual stated that Washington would like to cooperate with Ukrainian dignitaries on a broad scale to support reforms capable of advancing this country’s Euro-Atlantic integration. In other words, Washington believes that the current Ukrainian president and his country can be regarded separately and that programs aimed at supporting both governmental and non-governmental institutions will eventually have their effect.
Perhaps the only positive aspect about everything stated above is that no one wants Ukraine completely isolated at this stage. In his address before the end of the year Ambassador Pascual actually outlined a minimum action plan for Kyiv to carry out to avoid further losses. It would be good, of course, if Kyiv could do without such recommendations (letting alone their legitimacy) offered under such circumstances. Also, it should be noted that official Kyiv is in no position to ruin everything that has been achieved to date in its relationships with Washington.
