What kind of role has U.S. President Bill Clinton played in the development of modern American-Ukrainian relations?

Myroslav POPOVYCH, philosopher, Corresponding Member, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine:

“During Bill Clinton’s presidency Ukraine has had a remarkable opportunity to play an independent role among the former Soviet republics, for the Americans singled out and showed tolerance and a well-wishing attitude toward Ukraine. Ukraine’s prestige among the international elite is very low: sometimes I happened to hear terrible things about it. Ukraine is even considered a dismal failure unable to get out of the dire straits it is in. Many believe that so much time has been lost — 10 years of time-marking — that it is not worth dealing with this country.

Against this background, maximally good conditions were created during Clinton’s presidency for Ukraine to be able to change the picture it is associated with. I am afraid should the Republicans, Mr. Clinton’s opponents, win the U.S. elections, the situation in Ukraine will deteriorate, for the American taxpayer is very fickle and sensitive to his pocket and that of the state. However small, by American standards, is the money they spent on us and, what is more, however small this money really is compared to what we need and what the Americans perhaps should have spent on us, or, in other words, no matter how far it is from the idea of a ‘Marshall plan,’ all this is very essential for our moral and financial situation, but even this kind of attention toward Ukraine irritates very many people in America. I believe if Al Gore wins the elections, he will continue, even more effectively, the policies of Mr. Clinton. God help him, for we will be really hard up if the world turns its back on us.”

Yevhen KAMINSKY, Doctor of History, chair of Europe and the Americas Department, Institute of World Economics and International Relations, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine:

“Assessing the American foreign policy, one must always remember that the U.S., like any other self-respecting state, is guided by the supremacy of its own national interests.

“Let me remind you that George Bush, Mr. Clinton’s predecessor in the White House, considered as recently as in October 1991 that the collapse of the USSR would lead to chaos and destabilization in Europe, the last thing the U.S. wanted. He said frankly he feared the sovereignization of Soviet republics. Shortly before Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk and Stanislav Shushkevich signed the Bela Vezha agreement, Mr. Bush still toyed with the idea of long-term cooperation with a reformed USSR. He was seriously considering a kind of ‘Marshall plan’ to rescue the state Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the ‘evil empire.’

“Since the very first days of his presidency, Mr. Clinton has also considered it his primary goal to ward off any destructive effects the developments in the new independent states might have on U.S. national interests. Thus, everything was done to deprive Ukraine of a nuclear-power status. Further steps were in line with understanding the importance of a stable Ukraine for European security. Hence special attention to military and political cooperation, particularly, in the framework of the Partnership for Peace program.

“In the economic field, emphasis was put on the Ukrainian government taking full advantage of this country’s human, economic and raw- material potential. The United States is prodding us to pursue an open and transparent economic policy and create modern legal market-oriented mechanisms, which could attract the foreign investor. Reproaching Ukraine for a slow pace of reforms and the absence of serious progress in organized economic crime and corruption control, the White House has in fact suspended economic cooperation on the basis of the declared strategic partnership. Economic effectiveness of the Kuchma-Gore interstate commission also remains low. Now Ukraine is really facing the prospect of becoming one of America’s dubious priorities in Europe — in the same line with civil conflict-torn Indonesia in Asia and Latin American Colombia as the center of a worldwide drug mafia.

“The conclusion is self-evident: if we want America to respect us, we must put our own house in elementary order. In this case, it would be good to remember the popular American maxim: ‘Help yourself.’ If we do this, Mr. Clinton’s words about ‘interestedness’ in a prosperous and democratic Ukraine and preparedness of the Americans to help our state realize its European choice will be followed by practical deeds. Only then will the American investor come to us. Only then will the word ‘Ukraine’ stop being associated in the U.S. media with such notions as ‘corruption,’ ‘shadow economy,’ and ‘absence of reforms.’ “

Volodymyr FESENKO, political scientist, Kharkiv:

“Ukraine should not complain about lack of attention on the part of the overseas superpower. Whether in terms of the amount of financial and technical aid, or the number of visits by U.S. top officials, including President Bill Clinton himself, Ukraine holds a primary place in American foreign policy. The point is how effectively we have made and are making use of this attention. The U.S. has in fact become our strategic ally in relationships with international financial institutions, in lobbying Ukraine’s integration in the Euro-Atlantic structures, and as far as striking a geopolitical balance in the relations with Russia is concerned. Of special importance is the assistance U.S. government and non-government agencies render to develop civil society institutions in this country. Thanks to various charitable, informational and educational programs funded by the U.S. government, thousands of Ukrainians managed to acquire hands-on experience of American democracy and see the particularities of the U.S. political, economic, and social systems. I sometimes get the impression that overseas politicians are concerned more than the national political elite about the solution of our domestic problems (for example, sleaze control) and the development of democracy and a market economy in Ukraine. I have often heard a puzzled question from our American colleagues: ‘What does the Ukrainian leadership want exactly? What way of development does it prefer?’ They clearly mean the real political deeds of our leaders, rather than general political declarations.

“Naturally, the U.S. has strategic interests and geopolitical considerations of its own with respect to Ukraine. But we should remember that none of the Western countries has paid so much attention (mostly positive) to us as the U.S. has. The United States’ attitude to Ukraine might have been tougher, more cynical, or more indifferent. Might have been, but was not. It is for this reason that the current U.S. President Bill Clinton deserves warm words of thanks. For this was his official farewell visit to Kyiv.” By Natalia TROFYMOVA, The Day