“Ukraine means more to NATO than some of the new members,” Volodymyr YELCHENKO heard such an opinion in the US
“How does the US Administration feel about the developing relationship between Ukraine and NATO?”
“The US has shown significant interest in Kyiv’s fulfillment of the Ukraine-NATO Target Plan and said that the way it is fulfilled satisfies both Washington and other partners. Recognizing the progress registered by Ukraine in the three main directions of cooperation with NATO (defense reform, economic transformations, and political reform), the US believes that we should do some things faster if we want to accelerate the process of NATO accession. To this I said that we are not implementing this reform to obtain an invitation to the Istanbul Summit or join NATO five years ahead of time. We are doing this gradually to achieve effective results.
“Today the so-called Ukrainian question is not a priority for NATO not because there is less attention to Kyiv but because before the Istanbul Summit countless problems relating to the accession by new members must be solved. For this reason we have been told not to overly dramatize the issue of raising the level of our cooperation with NATO. We have been also told that Ukraine will receive the required signals as soon as preparations for the Istanbul Summit are completed. The Americans believe that after the summit the relationship between Ukraine and NATO should become more active above all because more attention will be paid to the Ukrainian question in the wake of NATO enlargement.”
“Many experts call Ukraine’s contribution to the peacekeeping effort in Iraq one of the aces up Ukraine’s sleeve in terms of its integration with NATO. Ukrainian peacekeepers are highly praised by other governments and international organizations. At the same time, politicians of the leftist camp insists that our peacekeepers return home. Similar trends are discernible in the international arena. For example, the new Spanish government has stated that their forces could be withdrawn from Iraq by June 30. Is this issue on the agenda in Ukraine?”
“This issue in not on the agenda, nor has it been raised. That it is broached in Verkhovna Rada is not surprising. It is raised by those who voted against sending our peacekeepers to Iraq. They have a right to their own views. I don’t think that the situation in Spain will affect Ukraine’s official policy. I would like to point to certain assessments of the Americans concerning the Ukrainians’ contribution to the peacekeeping effort. While formerly we only heard words of gratitude from the US for sending our contingent, now they emphasize specific results of our peacekeepers’ work. According to the Americans, the Ukrainian sector is one of the safest in Iraq. Those in Washington say that this is not because the sector itself is more peaceful than Baghdad or the south of Iraq, but because the Ukrainian contingent has managed to establish normal cooperation with the local population, authorities, and spiritual leaders. The peacekeepers implement specific projects, involving the locals in their work. The people in this part of Iraq see that the presence of the Ukrainian contingent is good for them in terms of improving their living conditions and security. Thus, under such conditions it would be unwise to even raise the issue of withdrawing our contingent from Iraq. That power will change hands in Iraq after June 30 can, of course, change the situation. But high US officials have already said that the foreign military will remain in Iraq for some time afterward. The process of handing over power will take some time. I’m certain that the issue of withdrawing the Ukrainian contingent will not be raised any time soon.”
“During the election campaign in Ukraine the politicians
will obviously attempt to cash in on this issue.”
“This is common political rivalry. There is no doubt that this will happen. I’m certain that the leftist forces will insist on withdrawing the contingent. Yet there is specific legislation in Ukraine and the relevant decision approved by the parliament and signed by the president. Will this issue be raised in Verkhovna Rada? We’ll wait and see. Most lawmakers continue to support the participation of our contingent in the stabilization forces. Incidentally, in Washington I heard an opinion that the example of cooperation of our contingent with those of NATO member states is evidence that Ukraine means more to the alliance than some countries that are about to join it.”
“What is the attitude of the US toward granting Ukraine market economy status?”
“It is positive. I think this issue will be solved gradually, as Ukraine moves closer to its accession to the World Trade Organization. At least the Americans link these issues. They recognize the significant progress in Ukraine’s movement toward the WTO. But there are certain bills that are yet to be approved by Verkhovna Rada. Above all this concerns protection of intellectual property rights. A relevant bill did not pass, which is one of the obstacles that render the US unable to speed the resolution of these issues. They will be discussed in more detail at the meeting of the Ukrainian-American Economic Committee. After that we will be able to speak of a date when the US might recognize Ukraine’s market economy status or when a bilateral protocol on the WTO might be signed. I think this will happen before the end of 2004.”
“Are you saying that the problem lies in the legislative plane and is in no way connected with politics?”
“Of course, politics will play a role, but I wouldn’t say that it will be decisive. Let us wait for the official beginning of the presidential campaign in Ukraine. Thus far there is no point in connecting the issues of economic cooperation with the preparations for the elections.”
“The negotiations obviously could not leave out the US presidential elections.”
“The US representatives said one thing: the US presidential elections will be a close fight. They also reminded that sometime in early summer all issues aside from the US elections will be relegated to the background. This traditionally happens in an election year. This will also affect US foreign policy and thus Ukrainian-American relations. We said that in the two or three moths that are still left it is in our interests to solve the most pressing issues in the bilateral relationship.”
“Recently The New York Times carried an article by Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In particular, she reproached the Bush Administration for paying little attention to Ukraine. Do you share her view?”
“The former secretary of state has a right to her own opinion. The frequency of visits by US officials has not declined. It’s a different matter that there are fewer contacts at the highest level. But we all know why this is happening. We have this period behind us and are now resuming normal dialog. George Bush had a brief meeting with Leonid Kuchma. On March 24-25 we expect to receive US Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage. We have also agreed that between the visit by Armitage and the Istanbul Summit Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko will visit the US, sometime in May. Washington is ready to prepare a serious and high-level program for his visit. Thus, the frequency of contacts is not declining, while their level is gradually increasing.”
“In what context were Ukraine’s presidential elections discussed?”
“The US representatives reiterated that they want to see transparent and democratic elections. To this I answered that today there is no cause for doubt. We must wait until the beginning of the presidential campaign and only then draw conclusions.”
“Some Ukrainian politicians often claim that calls for transparent elections from the White House are interference in our domestic affairs. Have you noticed such interference?”
“No. The US representatives stressed that they do not plan to side with either the opposition or pro- presidential candidate. To them the process of elections matters most: the president must be elected in a democratic way. I think we should believe such statements. In any case, they gave us no reasons to react differently.”
“A team of American experts have come to Ukraine to look into the problem of solid propellant disposal in Pavlohrad. Can we say that the stalemate has been broken?”
“I certainly hope so, since Pavlohrad was one of the main issues addressed in Washington. It is unacceptable for the US to deny its obligations. The environmental hazard is extremely high. Any alternative projects, be that incineration or detonation, are out of the question. Such methods could be used to destroy one or two tons of solid propellant. But considering its total volume, this is simply unacceptable in terms of environmental safety. Neither is this possible under Ukrainian laws. This is impossible in geographical terms. Arguments to the effect that such disposal techniques are successfully used in Russia are not relevant, since Ukraine is not Russia, and we don’t have such great expanses. We have agreed to wait for the expert conclusions. I’m glad that they have come, because even the repeated postponement of their visits were received here as their unwillingness to cooperate. American experts have to once again study our proposals and offer their view of the problem. But I want to stress that no method aside from high-pressure water washout is acceptable.”
“Did the talks touch on the participation by Ukrainian companies in the rebuilding of Iraq?”
“Certainly. We urged the US to take a more active stand concerning Ukraine’s involvement in economic projects in Iraq. Above all we discussed the reconstruction of the Al-Qut airport. They have assured us that this project is a priority but on the local and not the nationwide level. Currently the Americans expect to receive from us specific project documentation. Our embassy in Baghdad is already drafting this project.”
