COMMENTARY: Rubin's remarks and their significance (05/16/99)

COMMENTARY

Rubin's remarks and their significance

by Eugene M. Iwanciw and Michael Sawkiw Jr.

On May 2, U.S. State Department spokesman James Rubin, assistant secretary of state for public affairs, said on the CNN program "Late Edition": "They (the Kosovars) are not going to go back to their homes after suffering these terrible atrocities if a bunch of Ukrainians are running around with guns on their sides." This comment was made to an international audience that numbers in the tens of millions. Finding the comment serious enough to warrant Mr. Rubin's immediate dismissal, organizations such as the Ukrainian National Association and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America have formally requested a meeting with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to discuss the situation.

Many individual Ukrainian Americans are appalled by this comment and have already expressed their outrage to the Department of State and their representatives in Congress. Some, however, have asked just how serious this statement is. The answer is quite simple: Mr. Rubin's comment is very serious and would have resulted in his immediate dismissal had it been made of most other ethnic, religious or racial groups.

We would like to explain why the comment is serious and why nothing less than Mr. Rubin's dismissal is appropriate. The seriousness of the comment is threefold.

1. The wording itself: "A bunch of Ukrainians running around with guns on their sides" is an inappropriate reference to any country's military. It suggests a vigilante group rather than the disciplined military force that Ukraine possesses. The Ukrainian military has received widespread acclaim for the positive role it has played both in joint maneuvers with NATO and its peacekeeping role in Bosnia. Yet, Mr. Rubin's comment suggests that Ukraine's military is not disciplined and cannot be trusted with guns in Kosovo.

2. Impact of words: While we understand that Mr. Rubin comments on many issues and that mistakes are sometimes made, as spokesman for the State Department, his words carry great impact among policymakers throughout the world. There is no other manner in which the Department of State can clearly distance itself from the policy implications of these words except by Mr. Rubin's dismissal.

3. State Department pattern: The comment fits a pattern of treatment of Ukraine by the Department of State that dates back to 1991. During the fall of 1991, between the time of the declaration of Ukraine's independence and U.S. recognition of Ukraine, numerous newspapers around the country carried stories, attributed to unnamed State Department officials, that Ukrainian independence would result in civil war, atrocities, pogroms, etc. The department carried on a campaign against U.S. recognition of Ukraine. Even President George Bush's decision to recognize Ukraine after the December 1, 1991, referendum on independence - a move, supported by the secretary of defense and the national security advisor - was opposed by the secretary of state.

Soon after recognition of Ukraine, the Department of State began a campaign that painted Ukraine as too irresponsible to possess nuclear weapons. Pressure was exerted on Ukraine, directly and through the media, to turn over all its nuclear weapons to a responsible party, i.e., Russia. Ironically, leaks of nuclear technology to third parties have been traced to Russia and not Ukraine; at that precise time North Korea was building its nuclear weapons. North Korea, unlike Ukraine, does pose a threat to U.S. national security.

For a number of years after independence, Ukraine was listed in the State Department's travel advisory as a dangerous country for U.S. citizens to visit due to "terrorist activity." Only when the Ukrainian community protested and demanded evidence of any terrorism in Ukraine was this travel advisory lifted.

Earlier this year, the State Department's annual Ukraine Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 reported in its summary of events that "deep-seated societal anti-Semitism" exists in Ukraine, without offering substantiation of the claim. Though the report differentiates between societal and governmental actions, such crudely generalized statements are inappropriate in a governmental publication. A comparison of the Ukraine and Russia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1998 does not indicate "societal anti-Semitism" in the Russian summary, despite recent dramatic evidence that anti-Semitism is increasing in that country. Why the double-standard?

Thus, the message sent by the State Department is that Ukraine can be criticized unjustly without any penalty, without a pro forma apology or a cessation of the activity once the damage is done. This is irresponsible treatment of a sovereign state that has close relations with the United States and has sacrificed its own interests (e.g. nuclear weapons, the Kharkiv turbine sale and military sales to third countries, etc.) to accommodate U.S. concerns.

Words have meaning and repercussions. When words are publicly uttered, intentionally or unintentionally, by government officials, they cannot be recalled. Failure to respond to this comment about Ukraine and Ukrainians will send a loud and clear message to all government officials that Ukrainians are "fair game" for erroneous or derogatory comments, intentional or not. Only the dismissal of James Rubin will make it clear to all government officials that they must be as careful in their selection of words when talking about Ukraine or Ukrainians as they are when they speak of other ethnic, religious or racial groups.

| Home Page |