A necessary meeting

During the last week President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine made two visits to the US. First, he delivered a speech during the general debates of the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. This took place on Sept. 24 in New York. Afterwards the Ukrainian president had a meeting with US President George Bush. This took place on Sept. 29 in Washington.

It was the latter meeting that sparked many questions even before Viktor Yushchenko left for the US. Many of his opponents and certain spiteful individuals began chattering that the Ukrainian president was going to pick up instructions from the White House on how to resolve our political crisis. (Oct. 3 was the deadline for creating a new coalition.) Whether by accident or not, on the eve of Yushchenko’s visit to Washington, William Taylor, the US Ambassador to Ukraine, warned the Ukrainian government not to use force or introduce direct presidential government.

“We would like to see stability in Ukraine, and the collapse of the coalition is part of a normal political process in a parliamentary democracy. The US will work with any coalition once it is formed in a democratic, legal, and constitutional way,” the ambassador said in an article published in Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.

During his visit to the US, Yushchenko assured Bush that the situation in Ukraine is far from tragic or dramatic, and the current democratic resources will enable Ukraine to overcome the crisis. Bush underlined that the US “very strongly supports“ democracy in Ukraine. He expressed his readiness to cooperate with Ukraine in this direction. Time will tell whether Bush’s support will help Yushchenko resolve the political crisis in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian president also suggested to his American counterpart that he appoint high-ranking US representatives who will visit Ukraine to mark the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor. During their talks, the two leaders also talked about including the question of paying tribute to the victims of the famine in Ukraine in the agenda of the UN General Assembly.

Was it worthwhile for the president of Ukraine to go to the US, considering that many of his opponents thought that he would be consulting with the American president on whether to announce early elections or preserve the coalition?

COMMENTARY

Yurii SHCHERBAK, former Ambassador of Ukraine to the US:

“The US remains a great state, despite the desires of some to remove it from its leading positions in the world and declare that it is not the kind of state that determines the course of global events. Any meetings between the leaders of Ukraine and the US should be regarded positively. In principle, such meetings are necessary. They are never superfluous, even in this case, where the mandate of the current US administration ends in three months. Thus, it is no longer possible to approve any serious decisions that would be a breakthrough.

“One should also take into consideration the incredible political difficulties that President Yush­chenko has faced in our country. In my opinion, these problems are crucially important to Ukraine both in terms of domestic and foreign policy, because Ukraine cannot speak with a single voice without resolving its internal problems, and it will not be able to carry out its foreign policy. Another factor is the current status of the strategic partnership between our countries, which provides opportunities to discuss very subtle things, which is proof of that our two countries have an understanding of each other’s problems. I think these kinds of talks have taken place.

“It is clear that the decisions linked to the energy program and the implementation of energy projects are extremely important for Ukraine. In my opinion, the talks on Ukraine’s domestic situation and the global situation that has emerged after the Russian-Georgian war were no less important. The world has changed, the situation has changed abruptly, and Ukraine is facing new, serious challenges. And, of course, this sort of thing should be discussed with our strategic partners. I don’t know how fruitful the discussion of Ukraine’s domestic questions was, but knowing the Americans’ approach, I presume that they would have advised our president to do everything possible to reach a compromise and rescue the democratic coalition, because American political culture is oriented on seeking compromises, not fighting until the last bullet or soldier. Thus, the fact that Ukraine lacks a political culture is by no means welcomed in the West.

“I remember the talks that Presi­dent Leonid Kuchma had in the White House before one of the global crises in the 1990s, when we were warned and given advice on how to avoid negative outcomes of that crisis. Knowing how things work in the White House and aware of the level of trust between the presidents of Ukraine and the US, I would think that all the talks were frank. But it is not worthwhile expecting any essential progress at the moment because new people will be determining US policy, those who will win the presidential elections. Bush’s team will leave, and President Yushchenko will face the greatest challenges of his political career.

“To say that Yushchenko went to the US to consult on whether to dissolve parliament is a petty assumption without proof. Indeed, there can be none, as far as I know the practice of conducting these kinds of talks. A great state, which is among the leading countries of the world, would never sink to such a level. The United States will never give advice on what to do. It is not dignified to discuss questions relating to the domestic affairs of another country, which do not belong to the sphere of bilateral relations.

“The answer to these reproaches of the Party of Regions is as follows: they continue to travel to Russia, where they are being given recommendations on political technology, starting with the ill-fated elections of 2004 and ending with the new political situation. There is no doubt that they are being given such recommendations in the places that they are visiting. Knowing the Americans’ practice, I am certain that they didn’t have these kinds of discussions. A president of a rather large European country cannot ask what he should do because this would be viewed negatively in the White House.

“By the way, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Raisa Bohatyriova, who is a member of the Ukrainian delegation, will have an excellent idea of the content of the talks. I doubt that she would welcome talks that would be linked only to our domestic situation and other sensitive matters that cannot be determined by any other state.”