Washington Offers to Keep the Door Open for Ukraine
US Ambassador Carlos Pascual’s first formal appearance at the start of the year, concerning Ukraine, did not sound quite positive. It took place at the Center of Strategic and International Studies in Washington (it being a nongovernmental organization with Zbigniew Brzezinski among the founders). Mr. Pascual noted in particular that Ukraine cannot be regarded as a reliable partner and that it is currently a major challenge to European security; that it is took weak and dependent on Russia and is not very convincing in terms of set objectives. There were, however, positive aspects, specifically five proposals aimed at bettering US-Ukrainian relationships. Also, there were two essentially new aspects: a sharp tone and straightforward assessments, something US diplomacy had not resorted to previously. Mr. Pascual stressed that the bilateral relationships must be upgraded. He made no mention of the first results of Washington’s revision of its policy toward Ukraine, starting with the outbreak of the Kolchuga controversy (which, according to Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko, is nonexistent). And nor did he deviate from the now traditional emphasis on Ukraine’s good potential.
The key points in the US ambassador’s message (his being actually the principal spokesman of Washington in Ukraine, now that the United States adamantly refuses to maintain top-level political contacts) are as follows. Washington believes that Ukraine belongs to the Euro-Atlantic domain, but that Ukraine’s standards are inferior by far compared to those generally accepted in the West (e.g., abuses of the so-called administrative resource during the elections, pressure on the media, a civil society making the first tentative steps while ruthlessly persecuted by pro-presidential forces). There is nothing new about the allegation that US-Ukrainian relationships, previously strong, have been getting worse over the past several years. What is new is a list of factors causing distrust: in addition to the Gongadze case and cassette scandal, Mr. Pascual points to acts of violence by the presidential administration against civil rights in the media and electoral domains, also arms supplies to Macedonia (the latter made Washington and NATO quite angry at one time), and Ukraine’s poor handling of the crisis resulting from a Russian airliner shot out of the sky by a Ukrainian rocket over the Black Sea. The Kolchuga case is described as having caused major damage to US-Ukrainian relationships. Mr. Pascual stressed again that the US and UK investigators were not provided full access to data capable of clarifying the situation with the alleged sales of Kolchuga early warning systems to Iraq. At least, serious shortcomings were revealed in the Ukrainian export control system. According to Mr. Pascual, the United States regards Ukraine as a potential member of the Euro-Atlantic community, but this country is still unsure about its own objectives and this hampers its progress. Moreover, the US diplomat admitted for the first time to Russia’s strong influence on Ukraine which is also a potential obstacle on the road of Ukrainian integration into the West. He pointed out that Russia can exert a tangible degree of influence on the Ukrainian leadership and its policy. Russia has succeeded in getting Ukraine very much under control precisely due to Ukraine’s dependence on Russian energy resources and the Russians are eager to buy Ukrainian state property at low costs.
So what is to be done? There is only one answer to this: restoring mutual confidence. Mr. Pascual stressed that the United States has adopted an open-door policy, so that Ukraine’s integration prospects will depend on Kyiv’s response to the US proposals. First, the United States can help Ukraine reform its export system. Second, Washington proposes to develop relationships with Ukraine at the ministerial level - e.g., involving cabinet members championing stronger ties between Congress and Verkhovna Rada. Third, the bilateral cooperation is proposed to be enhanced in the trilateral Polish-Ukrainian-US format in order to define and implement the Ukrainian Euro-Atlantic integration program. The fourth proposal consists in the Ukrainian leadership undertaking to support a more democratic environment and develop a civil society. Here the emphasis is on the possibility of recognition and tolerant treatment of the opposition within a strong democratic society. Finally, Mr. Pascual hopes that Ukraine will continue with its military cooperation programs to reduce its redundant armed forces, thus facilitating integration into Western military and economic alliances (meaning NATO and WTO in the first place).
Ambassador Pascual stated that all allegations about the United States trying to undermine Leonid Kuchma’s presidency and replace him with Viktor Yushchenko are totally ungrounded (adding that some people in Ukraine told him that isolation is not the best option and that there is mounting distrust of America in Ukraine).
James Sherr, an expert of the Royal Military Academy (UK), spoke at the Center of Strategic and International Study earlier, stressing that both Ukraine and the West had made mistakes in their relationships, so it was necessary at this stage to reconsider what had come to pass and work out a new strategy. Mr. Sherr believes that EU’s refusal to offer a clear concept of Ukraine’s European prospects was a mistake, creating an adverse atmosphere within Ukraine. Another mistake was the closure of Ukraine’s western frontiers and making its eastern border transparent. According to Radio Liberty, this gave an impetus to the presidential administration’s cynical policy relying on people to whom the European standard remains alien and incomprehensible, acting under the guise of a theory whereby no one is waiting for Ukraine in Europe. Mr. Sherr considers the epoch of Ukraine’s oblivion a very bad mistake.
Therefore, the proposals voiced by Ambassador Pascual may or may not become the first steps toward a new global strategy between Ukraine and the West. This won’t work if both sides adhere to the principles of confrontation. Obviously, the US diplomat message addresses not only the Ukrainian leadership. What will be official Kyiv’s response?
