Kostiantyn HRYSHCHENKO: It Is Kyiv, not Washington, That Sets the Pace and Ways of Moving Towards NATO Membership
Relations between Ukraine and the United States have undergone a noticeable change over the past year from a crisis of confidence to a slight thaw. We offer our readers a Ukrainian viewpoint from Washington on the situation of cooperation between the two countries. Here follows The Day’s interview with Kostiantyn HRYSHCHENKO, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the USA.
“Can we say there are some new optimistic tendencies in US- Ukrainian relations? How in general could you characterize the extent of US attention to Ukraine at the moment?”
“I would say, using the weather terminology, that the political barometer’s pointer is slowly deflecting toward the ‘clear’ mark. The tone and, what is more, content of the bilateral dialogue has lately changed for the better, with positive and promising notes prevailing. It does not mean that Washington decided on a fine day to shut its eyes to the real existing problems in our relationship - on the contrary, we are constantly being reminded of them. But there is now a more unbiased approach to various things, attention is concentrated on what may be considered as strategic areas of cooperation within the competence of the two countries’ foreign political, military, and economic agencies, which can bring practical results in the near future. The proof of this is the recent successful work of the US-Ukrainian Economic Cooperation Committee, the US decision not to apply FATF sanctions against Ukraine, and US representatives’ support for Ukraine’s aspiration to join the WTO during the February talks in Geneva.
“In my view, what also contributes, in a way, to this conclusion is the so-called ‘revision of the US policy toward Ukraine’ that occurred in early 2003, namely, admission of the fact that the successful development of Ukraine as a market-economy democracy fully meets the United State’s national interests, and US readiness to promote these processes, with emphasis on the word ‘involvement’.”
“In what way did the Kolchuga affair affect US-Ukrainian relations?”
“Although the Kolchuga issue still produces a clearly negative effect on bilateral relations, it is no longer a stumbling block. I will remind you that our country has carried out an inquiry of its own into the deployment of Kolchuga systems, which allowed us to make an unambiguous conclusion that Ukraine has never supplied Kolchuga systems to Iraq. We made unprecedented efforts to convince foreign experts that such deliveries to Iraq could not possibly have taken place, and we are trying now to close this issue altogether. I hope the US will modify its stand on the Kolchuga problem so that the two sides can reach a greater mutual understanding. What also proved this is R. Scarboro’s article in the February 27 issue of The Washington Times , which thoroughly analyzes Iraq’s air defenses and emphasizes that the Americans have been carefully collecting intelligence data on Baghdad’s radar installations for the past 13 years. So this article does not mention even a hypothetical presence of Kolchuga systems in Iraq.”
“Can we interpret the likely mission of the Ukrainian special- purpose battalion in the Persian Gulf area as an opportunity to improve relations? Can we expect Washington to fund the transportation and deployment of this battalion?”
“Yes, the United States and the international community as a whole will take a cheerful view of the Ukrainian battalion’s participation in protecting Iraq’s neighbors from the effects of chemical and biological contamination. Although the technical details of transportation, deployment, and other things related to the mission of the Ukrainian military in the Gulf region are still under discussion, the US side has already shown readiness to share the funding of this operation.
“What is the US reaction to the latest Ukrainian-Russian developments, i.e., the appointment of Leonid Kuchma as CIS Council chairman on the initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the declaration on a single economic space?”
“The latest developments in the Ukrainian-Russian relations have aroused profound interest in the US. Yet, American politicians so far refrain from passing clear-cut judgments about those decisions. The comments of most US politicians and diplomats boil down to the claim that if the implementation of the aforesaid decisions brings about tangible market-economy growth in Ukraine, these developments should only be welcomed.”
“US ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual has lately expressed concern about what he called some manifestations of growing Russian expansion in Ukraine. Can we call this an instance of a geopolitical struggle for Ukraine?”
“Ukraine being quite an important and influential factor in international relations, it is only natural that neighborly and rather distant states take this country into account while building various geopolitical schemes. Yet, geopolitics obviously focuses today on the Middle East, and Ukraine will be able to obtain geopolitical advantages first of all if it does not stay clear of the current international intentions to resolve the Iraqi crisis, i.e., the trends that will determine international development in the short term.”
“Can we say the US is lobbying Ukrainian interests in NATO?”
“Yes, the United States has made this a crucial principle of its policy towards Ukraine. This meets our interests, and, besides, it is by no means Washington but Kyiv that sets the pace, ways, and methods of Ukraine’s movement toward NATO membership. The Americans are offering quite a substantial practical aid package in reforming the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which is, naturally, in our interests. The above-mentioned ‘revision’ clearly states that the US will actively support the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan and is prepared to cooperate with the Ukrainian government in implementing it. Even when our bilateral relations nose-dived, the Bush administration never cast a doubt on Ukraine’s goal to join NATO.”
