LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Shocked by letters in October 20 issue
Dear Editor:
As many of your readers know, I have worked hard to secure assistance for Ukraine. It has not been an easy task, but with the strong, consistent support of members of the Ukrainian American community, we have earmarked funds in the last two years, in spite of strong opposition from the administration. That is why I was shocked to read two letters to your paper in the October 20 edition.
In the first, Ambassador Richard Morningstar admonishes administration critics, pointing out that Ukraine receives $330 million, making it the third largest recipient of aid to FSU states. It is hypocritical, outrageous and just plain wrong for this administration to now claim credit for supporting Ukraine.
The level of assistance is a direct result of the active and successful involvement of the Ukrainian American community in the legislative process, which produced a concrete earmark of funds. I was deeply involved in hours of intense negotiation with the State Department and the White House over the fate of funding for Ukraine. At every turn, they attempted to strip out the earmark. Let me quote from a State Department document presented as the formal, final and unfortunate position of the Clinton administration: We "strongly oppose the Senate earmarks."
Not only is the administration misleading the community on its general view of Ukraine, they are misrepresenting the real level of support they provided. Just as one example, $23 million of the $330 million which the administration claims is, in fact, in their own words, the "value of private, charitable donations which they only transport." This means that donations made by your readers are claimed by President Bill Clinton as U.S. government aid in order to inflate the bottom line.
I was equally surprised to see a letter from Alex Kuzma lauding the administration's record on Ukraine. As a representative of the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund, he met with my staff and urged me to earmark assistance not only for children who were victims of the accident, but also to set aside a specific commitment for decommissioning the Chornobyl facility. He made the request because of inadequate support from the administration. More specifically, he indicated he did not believe the U.S. would fulfill our commitments under the G-7 agreement unless funding was directed.
After talking with Ukrainian officials and U.S. experts, I included these and a number of other earmarks for nuclear safety, agricultural production, environmental improvements and small business development. I believe each earmark makes a major contribution to advancing economic and political reforms. A free, democratic and prosperous Ukraine serves American ideals and interests.
The Ukrainian American community has a deep attachment to the history which has shaped their homeland. History should accurately reflect the negligence and opposition Ukraine has endured at the hands of this administration.
Sen. Mitch McConnell
Washington
The writer is a U.S. senator from Kentucky and chairman of the Subcom-mittee on Foreign Operations.
Maintains accuracy of reports from D.C.
Dear Editor:
Truth seems to be the first casualty of political campaigns. For close to a decade the pages of The Weekly have carried my reports of events in Washington as they affect Ukraine. I have accurately reported the actions and policies of three administrations and five Congresses. These reports have included items of both a positive and negative nature about Republicans and Democrats alike.
While I am a registered Republican, I have been meticulous in remaining non-partisan in both my representation of the Ukrainian National Association and in my reporting of events in Washington. The non-partisan nature of my work is demonstrated by the close relationship I maintain with members of Congress of both political parties. The objectivity of my reporting is demonstrated by the fact that stories filed by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America Washington Office have been consistent with those I have filed.
The October 20 issue of The Weekly contained three letters claiming that my letter on U.S. assistance to Ukraine "distorts the record" of the Clinton administration. I stand by the stories I have written and have the documentation, supplied by the Clinton administration, to substantiate my statements. While I understand the writers are motivated by a desire to see President Bill Clinton re-elected, I would hope that they could present their case without distorting the facts or questioning my integrity.
Let me address the major issues raised in the three letters. Earlier this year, Ambassador Richard Morningstar (special advisor to the president on assistance to the NIS and a writer of one of the letters) testified before Congress that the administration was planning to provide Ukraine with only $167 million under the Freedom Support Act. Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) with support from both Republicans and Democrats, enacted legislation requiring not less than $225 million of assistance to Ukraine. The Clinton administration, in writing, strongly opposed these earmarks.
During the House-Senate Conference, the administration's effort to undercut the Ukrainian earmark was repudiated overwhelmingly by Republicans and Democrats. The strongest words of criticism of the administration's efforts, came, ironically, from Rep. Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat.
Even after losing this battle, the Clinton administration did not give up. In the final days of the Congress, Ambassador Morningstar was sent to lobby against the earmarks for Ukraine and Armenia.
If the Clinton administration opposes earmarks on principle, then why did they lobby only against the earmarks for Ukraine and Armenia and not against the earmarks for Israel, Egypt, Cyprus, Burma, etc? Is their opposition in principle selective as to countries?
We keep hearing the claim that the administration has provided Ukraine with $330 million of assistance in fiscal year 1996. This is mixing apples and oranges. The major assistance program is the Freedom Support Act, and differences between the administration and the Congress have focused on this program. The administration's figure of $330 million includes many other assistance programs and even private-sector donations, including assistance provided directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian American community. However, if the administration wants to discuss all programs, including Nunn-Lugar and USDA funds, then let's look at the assistance levels from all programs.
According to Ambassador Morning-star's own report to Congress, Ukraine is receiving the third lowest per capita assistance among the 12 new independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union. In addition, of the funds allocated for the nations of the NIS, the rate of expenditure for Ukraine is the third lowest. In other words, the Clinton administration has decided to spend the mandated level of assistance to Ukraine as slowly as possible. If the delay was due to the slow pace of economic reform in Ukraine, as the letter writers claim, then how does one explain the high rate of expenditure for countries such as Turkmenistan, Tajikistan (a Communist country) and other NIS nations that are light years behind Ukraine in economic reform.
The various writers referenced the trade credits that the administration has provided Ukraine. Again, according to Ambassador Morningstar's own report to Congress, financing, credits and insurance by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) to Russia (three times the size of Ukraine) has been 10 times the amount provided to Ukraine. In addition, a major portion of the credits for Ukraine in FY 1996 went to the John Deere Corp. for sale of U.S.-produced agricultural combines to Ukraine, a program heavily criticized by even The New York Times since the program effectively undercuts private farmers in Ukraine. The Morningstar report also notes that Russia received over five times the amount of benefit from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs that Ukraine received.
The facts speak for themselves.
Our community must judge each office holder by his record and not make sweeping generalizations about political parties. The reality is that foreign assistance has been declining for years. The Clinton administration has requested less and less foreign assistance, and the Congress, under both Democratic and Republican control, has cut those requests further. The lack of consensus for foreign assistance is not a partisan issue; there are as many Democrats as Republicans who fail to understand the benefit of foreign assistance for U.S. security interests.
The first two earmarks for Ukraine, challenging the Clinton administration's policy toward Ukraine, were passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress. The next two earmarks were passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. If anything, this demonstrates the bipartisan nature of the support for Ukraine in the Congress and the bipartisan skepticism of the Congress for the administration's commitment to Ukraine. The key players in the enactment of the earmarks have been from both parties, including Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Phil Gramm (R-Texas) former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) and Reps. Charles Wilson (D-Texas), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), John Edward Porter (R-Ill.), David Bonior (D-Mich.) and Sander Levin (D-Mich.).
Ukraine's interests are not advanced by making sweeping comments against one or the other political party. There are supporters of building closer ties between the United States and Ukraine in both political parties, as there are isolationists in each party. Each public official should be judged on his own record and not by the party they belong to. The blanket attack on the Republican Party made in one letter can only serve to undercut the support Ukrainian Americans and Ukraine have received over the years by many prominent members of that party. This can be particularly damaging if Republicans retain control of one or both Houses of Congress or even win the White House. It is in our interests to work with and in both parties. The strident partisanship in the one letter and in a previous letter published in The Weekly are counterproductive. It is time to put the interests of Ukraine above short-term partisan consideration.
Unlike the writers of two letters, I am not urging anyone to vote for a particular candidate for president on November 5. I do, however, urge each Ukrainian American to review the record of each candidate, not only as it pertains to Ukraine but to all the issues that affect us as Americans, and to cast an informed vote on Election Day.
Eugene M. Iwanciw
Arlington, Va.
Vote to continue a positive policy
Dear Editor:
Ukraine is now the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel and Egypt. This status reflects the strategic role Ukraine now occupies in President Bill Clinton's foreign policy. It also shows us how far Ukraine has come since President George Bush went to Kyiv to lecture the Ukrainian Parliament on "suicidal nationalism."
Ukraine's favored status with the Clinton administration does not mean the Ukrainian community in America can be complacent, however. The same forces that opposed Ukrainian independence five years ago are still active, as evidenced by the vicious article attacking Ukraine in Forbes magazine last month. That is why Eugene Iwanciw is right to push for earmarks for Ukrainian foreign aid.
Although President Clinton seems well on his way to winning re-election, the possibility always exists that Bob Dole can still win. Already Mr. Dole has announced that Forbes magazine editor Steve Forbes would be his treasury secretary. James Baker, President Bush's secretary of state, and architect of the policy to prop up a dying Soviet Union, would also have a prominent role in a Dole administration. Given the record of these two men - not to mention other Republican operatives - the danger to Ukraine cannot be overstated. That's when our community will be grateful for the earmarks on U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
By coming out in force for President Clinton in November, however, our community can help to insure that America's positive policy toward Ukraine is not overturned by forces hostile to its independence.
Walter P. Bubna
Cleveland
League of Voters supports Clinton
Dear Editor:
As the 1996 election campaign is fast nearing its conclusion, we are inundated with negative and positive commercials (mostly negative) on TV, subtle and not-so subtle personal attacks, and debates by the candidates for a seat in our government - including a shining place in the sun: the presidential seat. In this mad scramble for our vote we are supposed to intelligently decide what is best for us, our children and grandchildren. The League of Ukrainian Voters in New Jersey (LUV) feels that it is our civic responsibility to vote, but, Dear Lord, could someone help to sort it all out?
LUV is a non-partisan political action group that encourages political and civic participation in the Ukrainian American community. In the 1996 election, LUV is endorsing the Democratic ticket headed by President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore because Ukrainian Americans, who are concerned with American issues that deal with everyday life in the United States also have a specific agenda: namely, concerns with the American government regarding its foreign policy toward Ukraine and the newly emerged CIS countries in Eastern Europe.
Democrats in our government have generally been more helpful and supportive to our community in the recent past. They have upheld numerous actions - including financial projects regarding governmental grants, and were generally much more understanding of our concerns. Examples of significantly Democratic-supported projects are: the congressional Commission on the Ukraine Famine; grants from USAID, the Eurasia Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy for projects like those of Sabre-Svitlo, CCRF, UAV Adopt-a-Hospital and others.
While a number of issues drew bipartisan support, Republicans were generally less supportive of issues important to Ukrainians - whether the party in power was Republican or Democrat. Some of the examples that come to mind are: former President Ronald Reagan's opposition to the Ukraine Famine Commission, the cases of Myroslav Medvid and Walter Polovchak, the extradition of John Demjanjuk, President George Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech before the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv, and the slashing of funds for RFE/RL and VOA and other democratization projects by the majority-dominated Republican Congress - in addition to a harsh and short-sighted immigration policy.
President Clinton's strong support for Ukraine has been amply demonstrated on numerous occasions. On one such occasion Mr. Clinton said: "For America, support for an independent Ukraine secure in its recognized borders is not only a matter of sympathy, it is a matter of our national interest as well. We look to the day when a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is America's full political and economic partner in a bulwark of stability in Europe." In fact, President Clinton hosted President Leonid Kuchma to the first state visit by a Ukrainian leader to the U.S.
President Clinton's Partnership for Peace program has helped to draw Ukraine into Europe's evolving security systems and allowed it to participate in military exercises with European and American troops. Trade between the United States and Ukraine now exceeds $500 million per year, and Ukraine has become the third largest recipient of U.S. assistance.
In spite of such overwhelming considerations for Ukrainians to cast their vote for Clinton/Gore, there are among us spoilsports who publicly spew numbers, dates and political lingo at us in order to instill confusion, doubt and fear. They take an issue, exaggerate it out of proportion, and keep repeating the same distorted facts in a variety of styles in an attempt to intimidate us. We should not knuckle under such pressure. They have their own fish to fry, for they are looking for political patronage and handouts.
LUV encourages all to vote their conscience and engage in participatory democracy instead of treating elections as a spectator sport. At this point in time it is to our advantage to vote the Clinton/Gore ticket. We cannot afford to sit this one out and then complain that our government is not what it should be. We must vote in order to make a difference.
Walter Bodnar
Newark, N.J.
The writer is public relations director for the League of Ukrainian Voters.
Why waste space on political diatribe?
Dear Editor:
I read The Ukrainian Weekly for news about Ukraine and Ukrainians - news we ordinarily don't get in the American media. Why waste valuable space in your fine publication on sleazy political diatribe? Don't we already get too much in the American press?
Alexander Musichuk
Parma, Ohio
A voice in support of Richard Durbin
Dear Editor:
With the formation of the Ukrainians for Salvi committee, Ukrainian Americans in Illinois have the great fortune of having two Senate candidates who will listen to their concerns. ("Ukrainians in Illinois form committee for Salvi," September 22). Al Salvi's opponent, Congressman Richard Durbin, has long supported Ukrainian issues.
As the son of an immigrant from Lithuania, Rep. Durbin believes it is in the best interest of the United States to support democratic and economic reforms in Ukraine and the other newly independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe. He has supported and worked for earmarks in foreign aid appropriations for Ukraine. In addition, he co-sponsored the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, which states that the United States should continue to support the full and active participation of Ukraine and the other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe in activities appropriate for qualifying for NATO membership.
Congressman Durbin has also been involved in helping Ukraine deal with the tragic consequences of Chornobyl. He was an original co-sponsor of legislation that urges the government of Ukraine to continue its negotiations with the G-7 countries to close all the nuclear reactors at Chornobyl in a safe and expeditious manner, and calls upon the president of the United States to continue to support the process of closing the Chornobyl plant. The legislation recognizes the necessity for assistance from the United States in funding energy reform and safety programs.
It is my hope that the Ukrainian Americans who are supporting Al Salvi can convince Mr. Salvi to show the same level of commitment to Ukraine's development as Congressman Durbin has shown.
Vasyl Markus Jr.
Chicago
The writer is research director of the Durbin for Senate committee.
Bob Dole deserves our trust, our votes
Dear Editor:
A Ukrainian American friend approached me recently and asked, "Can we trust Bob Dole to continue the current positive policy of our government toward Ukraine?" I was intrigued by the question and proceeded to outline Bob Dole's long and outstanding record on human rights, national rights and support of the goal of independence for Ukraine. Of course we can trust Bob Dole to support Ukraine.
But for Ukrainian Americans this election is about much more than just our U.S. policy toward Ukraine. This election is about the future of our country, the United States of America, and whom we should trust with the future.
As a Republican, I thought it would be important to note what Democrats are saying about the issue of trust. The following are quotes, taken from the Congressional Record, by Democratic senators about Bob Dole:
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): "I have been struck by his forthrightness as majority leader - his word was his commitment and his commitment was a matter of honor."
Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.): "He keeps his word, which is an essential ingredient in building trust."
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "But, most of all, Mr. President, Bob Dole will be remembered in the Senate as a man of his word. There is no greater compliment which one senator can pay to another."
Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.): "He never, as Sen. Dole mentioned in his speech this morning, has he ever, to my knowledge, violated that cardinal rule of the U.S. Senate - unwritten, which is just as effective: A man's word or a woman's word is their bond. In all of these nearly 18 years that I have had the pleasure of my association with Bob Dole, I have never known Bob even to give a hint of breaking his word, because if there was ever a man in the U.S. Senate for whom we all know his word is his bond, that is Bob Dole."
As for our current president, Bill Clinton, Democrat Bob Kerry, senator from Nebraska, said in the January 1996 issue of Esquire: "Clinton is an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?"
I realize that Sen. Kerry is correct, as should all Americans.
I also know that we can trust Bob Dole. Bob Dole deserves our support on November 5.
Taras Szmagala
Cleveland
An essential book for all libraries
Dear Editor:
The September 29 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly contains a letter by Olga Prychka titled "Check the books at your libraries." Ms. Prychka as well as her community in Stratford, N.J., should be commended for their excellent idea and its execution. It is indeed very important to insist on having books about Ukraine at local libraries.
I am only saddened and somewhat surprised that in the list of books donated (all undoubtedly useful), the Encyclopedia of Ukraine was prominently absent. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine has been recognized by scholars throughout the world as the most comprehensive and objective source on Ukraine, both past and present. It is precisely such books as the Encyclopedia of Ukraine that should be in every library. I would certainly join Ms. Prychka in encouraging all readers of The Weekly to go to their local libraries and insist that the libraries purchase this most essential book on Ukraine.
Prof. D.H. Struk
Toronto
The writer is editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, October 27, 1996, No. 43, Vol. LXIV
| Home Page | About The Ukrainian Weekly | Subscribe | Advertising | Meet the Staff |