INTERVIEW: Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak speaks at the conclusion of his tour of duty (11/15/98)

INTERVIEW: Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak speaks at the conclusion of his tour of duty

by Yaro Bihun
Special to The Ukrainian Weekly

WASHINGTON - On November 20, Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak and his wife, Maria, will return home to Kyiv, having served four years as Ukraine's official representative to the United States.

While preparing for his departure and between numerous farewell receptions and banquets, Ambassador Shcherbak gave his last interview to The Ukrainian Weekly's special correspondent, Yaro Bihun. He recalled the historic changes in U.S.-Ukraine relations during that period, its high points and low points, his relationship with the Ukrainian American community and what he sees as its future role with respect to Ukraine, and the development of Ukraine's new diplomatic corps, among other issues.

Following are excerpts from the hourlong interview, which was translated from Ukrainian.

Q: Over the past four years you have been a witness to - or more accurately, a participant in - the important development of relations between Ukraine and the United States. Could you point out some of the most important moments of that period?

A: The pivotal year in our relationship was 1994. It happened during President Leonid Kuchma's first visit, which coincided with my arrival and presentation of my credentials to President Bill Clinton. It was the first-ever state visit to the United States by a Ukrainian president, and it was important for the signing of the basic document that outlines our relationship: the charter on cooperation and friendship, which included such important points as the U.S. recognition of Ukraine's importance for European and world security and its support of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity.

To better understand the background, one must remember that in 1992, 1993 and the beginning of 1994, our bilateral relationship was strained because of the large number of nuclear arms positioned on Ukrainian territory. Understandably, the United States was interested in resolving its own strategic concerns; they pressed for the removal of this nuclear threat, which, during the Soviet, Cold War years, indeed, was a direct threat to the United States. But Ukraine, too, which had pledged to become a non-nuclear country, was now able to fulfill this promise and at the same time resolve all outstanding issues in the U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relationship before or during President Kuchma's visit.

We can state that 1994 saw the beginning of a qualitatively new period in our relationship. We called this relationship a "democratic partnership" then, but in 1995, during President Kuchma's second visit to Washington, the proposal was made to raise the relationship to a higher level, to that of a "strategic partnership." And we reached that level in 1996. Since then, the Binational Kuchma-Gore Commission began its work through its four committees and held two plenary sessions, first in Washington in 1997 and this year in Kyiv. These were very important steps in building closer ties and enhancing mutual understanding.

The road we traveled over these four years leads us to expanded cooperation in the 21st century. We have grown used to each other. Our relationship is not merely a diplomatic formality, we are now real partners - we know each other's problems - we have strong ties, including close personal ties, which are also important in politics, when people meet as old friends without the need to get re-acquainted or explain again one's position.

I think that Ukraine is one of a few, if not the only country in the former Soviet Union, that has such a relationship and that level of openness and trust as we now have with the United States. Our views may differ on some issues, but we try to resolve these differences at the conference table, within the bilateral process.

We still have a long way to go in further improving our relationship, but what was accomplished in the past four years was a good beginning.

Q: And, if it's proper for a diplomat to be so candid, in the midst of these accomplishments, were there also any low points in the relationship?

A: There were moments of discouragement and disappointment, of course, when, for example, the expectations of swift and effective reforms in Ukraine proved unrealistic, when we discussed American investors' problems in Ukraine in which our side was at fault.

The "certification" process was a very difficult time, when the U.S. secretary of state had to certify that Ukraine was making progress in market reforms and in resolving disputes with U.S. companies. This was a very unpleasant time, as we strove to resolve these problems and ultimately received certification. But it was not easy.

We understand, however, that cooperation does not come easily between countries that have such different roots, traditions and histories, as well as social and political development experiences.

But, here again, even these negative moments underscore the positive nature of our relations. The Americans now understand us better; they listen to our explanations, which was not always the case in the past when they were far more uncompromising and inflexible in their positions. Constructive cooperation developed later.

Q: You, no doubt, have a number of plans or ideas for which you either did not have time or, for other reasons, could not bring to fruition. What tops this list?

A: I think there is a potential for increased cooperation in many areas, first of all, in trade. We certainly cannot be satisfied with the level of our trade relations. Because of barriers to Ukrainian exports, we were not able to take full advantage of the potential of the U.S. market. I'm convinced that we can do much more than we are doing, but this would require very intensive efforts and hard work to expand our market share.

There is also a great potential for cooperation in small businesses and in agriculture, where we have initiated relationships, but they are far below their potential - as is foreign investment in Ukraine.

Q: What are some of the major problems your successor will have to face in his - or her - first few months as ambassador here?

A: First of all, I heartily welcome my successor. I know him - I can reveal that it is a "him" and not a "her" - he is a highly qualified and experienced Ukrainian diplomat, and I wish him all the success in continuing and improving what was begun.

I think, basically, that he will face, more or less, the same problems we faced. For example, the Kuchma-Gore foreign affairs committee has already started discussing the next "certification." And I'll admit that it will not be any easier than the previous one, because the criteria now are wider in scope, dealing with not only investment disputes, but with the investment climate in general as well as progress on reforms - all very subjective issues.

And my successor will begin with this. He will have to go and seek support in Congress, stay in constant touch with the administration and try to limit the issues to a few concrete problem areas that can be resolved. This will not be easy, and I wish him all the best in meeting this first challenge as the new ambassador.

Q: And what other problems stand in the way of further improving U.S.-Ukrainian relations?

A: Our countries are different in too many ways. There are major psychological barriers. If the Americans frequently do not agree on issues with even some of the highly developed European democracies - the Americans and French frequently do not see eye-to-eye on things, for example - then what can one say about us, with our history, biography, and psychological development?

This is a major problem, which ultimately will be overcome, but it will take at least another generation.

Q: From the outset, you have tried to maintain close, cooperative ties with the Ukrainian American community and its organizations. How would you describe your efforts in this area?

A: First of all, we had a clear goal: to work together on a regular basis while adhering to the principles of mutual trust and respect, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

Second, we understood the complexity of the situation. There are organizations with varying political orientations. There are some that have yet to realize that the period for destruction must give way to a period of construction - the need to shift from revolutionary goals to the important, although sometimes less-than-exciting job of building a country. And there were instances when we did not understand well enough the situation within the Ukrainian community.

Our plan, which was formulated in consultation with the Ukrainian community, included regular consultations with the leaders of Ukrainian organizations, during which the community learned much, recognized some misunderstandings and heard justified complaints, as well as constructive proposals.

We strove to turn the Embassy not into a closed and somber diplomatic institution, an impregnable fortress, as sometimes happens, but into an intellectual center, where we could meet and hold cultural and academic events. We held roundtable discussions and conferences - more than 80 such events over the four years. Maybe there were some small mistakes made, but we benefited greatly from them, in our understanding of each other's problems.

I had countless meetings with the Ukrainian community, both here in the Washington area and everywhere I traveled. I think it is important that today, after four years of these meetings, we now understand better the life and thinking of the Ukrainian American community, and we expect that they, in turn, understand Ukraine more clearly.

We strove to present objective information, while trying not to embellish anything. And we tried to explain - because it's easy to notice that almost everyone speaks Russian in Kyiv, but difficult to fully comprehend what brought it about.

Q: The role of the diaspora with respect to Ukraine has changed over the course of its more than 100-year history. In your opinion, what will, or should be its role in the future?

A: First of all, I think, the diaspora has played and will continue to play an important role in the preservation of certain cultural, political and spiritual values, especially through the times of totalitarianism at home, when everything linked to Ukrainian history, the history of its independence struggles, was being destroyed. This is the great accomplishment of the diaspora, that it preserved for us a very important part of our history.

With the proclamation of Ukraine's independence and the development of an independent Ukrainian state, the role of the diaspora is changing. It should and will continue to play an active role, but it should be constructive and creative, not destructive. It was necessary to destroy the walls of that concentration camp or prison in which we all found ourselves. And now, when we stand on the ruins of that empire and are building a nation, we continue to need the diaspora and its constructive assistance.

This does not mean that one has to agree with everything. Some activists seem to feel that they cannot support the country because one or another representative of the country is not to their liking. To my mind, this is a wrong approach. Not all representatives of my government are to my liking either. I have my own political opinions, likes and dislikes, but I know that, above all, the nation should be built. And it's an important function of the diaspora to support our country here, in its relations with the administration and Congress.

We respect the Ukrainian community. because during the past four years we have worked together well. The diaspora, for example, helped us very much in the "certification" process. Nor could the Embassy have brought into being the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus; it was the diaspora's efforts that did it.

These are important efforts, and I feel that they should continue for a long time to come. Ukraine will change as new generations come and go, but the need for support for Ukraine in certain areas will remain.

Q: For the past six years - two as ambassador to Israel and the last four in your current assignment - you have observed and helped the development of Ukraine's fledgling diplomatic corps. How is it progressing, and were there any special problems in the changeover from the old Soviet diplomatic system and personnel?

A: Today, in fact, we turned a new page in the development of new diplomatic cadres here - we received a young diplomat who was among the first graduates of Ukraine's new diplomatic academy. This signals the beginning of a normal process of forming Ukraine's diplomatic corps.

What did we have six or seven years ago? Only a handful of so-called career or professional Soviet-style diplomats. One must given them credit, however - a majority of them were patriots who supported an independent Ukraine and served it well.

But we couldn't establish an entire diplomatic corps - which now has more than 1,000 diplomats - only with them. I remember how Foreign Affairs Minister Anatolii Zlenko sought potential ambassadors. He approached me and tried to convince me by saying that I've already been a Cabinet minister (of environmental protection), a physician and writer, so why not try something new for Ukraine? The situation was analogous to that of other post-colonial states that gained their independence.

Q: Did you have any time left over for any personal enjoyment during your assignment here?

A: Of course, there were happy moments of a personal nature - relaxation, meetings with wonderful new friends and traveling across this interesting country. But maybe I'm outgrowing my youthful excitability as I age: I felt most satisfied and fortunate in knowing that I had done something positive for U.S.-Ukraine relations, to have been a part of this historical process.

Q: What can you tell us about your next assignment?

A: Personally, I find it difficult to dwell on new positions or assignments. Whether I get another position or not does not matter.

I want to use all of my abilities for Ukraine - my numerous good contacts, my understanding of developments, my experience. If there is a position that will give me an opportunity to more effectively influence the development of our foreign policy or foreign relations, that would be wonderful. But if not, it doesn't matter. I'll always remain who I am.

If, for example, today I were to put an end to the insanely active life I've been leading over the past four years, and instead would write a meaningful book of my reflections, who knows, maybe this would be more important than getting another position in the administration.

As I stated at the church [during a farewell banquet honoring the ambassador November 24], one cannot retire one's love for Ukraine.

Q: And in conclusion, not a question, but simply an open microphone for whatever else you may want to say as you depart the United States.

A: First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to all for the warmth and good will I always felt in my meetings with Ukrainians and Americans in this wonderful country - to all my friends and acquaintances for their support not only for me personally, but, above all, for Ukraine. This was an expression of faith and love for Ukraine on their part. Ukraine is worthy of this. Ukraine is independent, but it still needs the good will of others. And I am thankful to all who believe in its future.

| Home Page |