INTERVIEW: Ambassador Pascual sets the record straight on issues in U.S.-Ukraine relations

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - In the past few weeks several resonant issues have surfaced in U.S.-Ukraine political and economic relations, among them the imposition of economic sanctions by each country against the other; suggestions in the mass media that a shift may have occurred in Washington's foreign relations vis-à-vis Kyiv and Moscow; and information that a U.S. specialist has determined that the recordings made by Maj. Mykola Melnychenko, a former presidential bodyguard, in the office of Ukraine's president are authentic.

The Ukrainian Weekly turned to the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Carlos Pascual, to give the U.S. stance on these controversial and potentially explosive issues and to set the record straight. The interview was conducted in the ambassador's office in Kyiv on February 8.

Mr. Pascual arrived in Kyiv on October 19, 2000, as the fourth U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Prior to that he served as the special assistant to the U.S. president and senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia at the National Security Council in Washington.

Q: Has the United States agreed to cede to Moscow a sphere of influence over Ukraine? There has been reference in the Russian press to something called the "Rice Doctrine;" it was reported in Nezavisimaya Gazeta on December 29, 2001. Is there at this time an agreement of this sort?

A: Absolutely not. The U.S. policy on Ukraine has always been that we support a sovereign, independent, democratic, market-oriented Ukraine - and you have heard us say it for the last 10 years - and we are going to continue to say it because it is what we believe and what we are committed to.

I would certainly be skeptical of anything coming out of Moscow that claims to state U.S. policy. If anybody wants to look to a statement of U.S. policy on Ukraine, I would refer you to the article that [former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine] Steve Pifer and I wrote, which was published in The Washington Quarterly [winter 2002 issue]. It was fully cleared by the administration and reflects the Bush administration's views on U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Q: To delve a little bit further into this matter, The New York Times printed an article on January 13, in which you were quoted as saying effectively that the U.S. has always supported Ukraine developing relations eastward as well as westward. The tone of the article suggests that, whereas the vital interests of the U.S. to clear Ukraine of nuclear arms and then of the Chornobyl danger kept relations between Washington and Kyiv tight, now that those issues are resolved there was less of a pressing need to maintain close ties. Has there been any discussion at all in Washington to loosen the political ties between Ukraine and the United States to allow Kyiv to move closer to Moscow?

A: None whatsoever. In the article Steve and I wrote what we wanted to get across was the point, which is consistent with what we have been saying certainly since I have been involved with U.S. policy on Ukraine, particularly since 1995, is that we recognize that Ukraine and Russia are neighbors; and the very fact that they are neighbors means they are going to have a relationship and it's better for that relationship to be a good relationship rather than a bad relationship, and that reform in Ukraine and reform in Russia should actually be complementary to one another.

The big issue, particularly in my mind, that which is important to focus on right now, is that to the west of Ukraine virtually all of the countries are either in NATO or are seeking membership in NATO. To the east of Ukraine you have Russia, which has developed a closer relationship with NATO, with the EU and with the United States.

That's also a positive thing. It's positive for Ukraine in several ways. For those people who said that you couldn't move more aggressively in relations with the Euro-Atlantic community because Russia would object, that argument has fallen away because now Russia itself is developing closer relations with the Euro-Atlantic community.

The other part of this is that any lingering dividing lines that have [existed] in Europe are in the process of being torn away. In effect, the political and security map of Europe is being redefined yet again, in the most significant way since 1997, when the previous expansion took place.

In our view, this creates an opportunity for Ukraine because it gives Ukraine a chance to firmly entrench itself in these evolving Euro-Atlantic political structures and security structures. The ability to do that will depend fundamentally on what Ukraine proposes and on the kinds of reforms Ukraine undertakes internally. So this is an important time for Ukraine to think creatively about those kinds of relationships.

What the United States can assure Ukraine is that, in this continuing evolution of the political and security picture in Europe, Ukraine will not be forgotten. How Ukraine fits into that picture overall depends on what Ukraine is comfortable with and where it wants to go.

Q: So there have been no changes in the way the United States looks at Ukraine since September 11 and as a result of any discussions between Moscow and Washington?

A: None whatsoever, with the caveat that in regard to September 11 we very much appreciate the role that Ukraine has played because, as I have said before, it has been an extremely constructive one. I saw some statistics the other day that indicated that there may have been since the beginning of the overflights to Afghanistan, in particular humanitarian airdrops, perhaps on the order of 900 flights over Ukraine. That's just indicative of how important Ukraine has been. Without the ability to do this, without the ability to fly over Ukrainian air space, it would have been much more complicated to do many of the things we have been doing over the last few months.

Q: Turning to the issue of U.S. sanctions on Ukraine, because the Parliament is getting ready for elections and because it hasn't shown any real desire to review what it did approve, has the U.S. discussed with Ukraine a way out of the current predicament, or must Ukraine still pass at this moment some sort of legislation, which will be more or less in line with what the U.S. is looking for before sanctions will be lifted?

A: We are only beginning now to discuss the specifics of what could be done, but let me outline the basic strategy that we hope to take. While we have not completed a full legal review of the law that was passed here, we think it is flawed. The reason we think it is flawed is because this piece of legislation is subservient to a separate general licensing law in Ukraine. That general licensing law was created to actually restrict licensing and make it very, very difficult to get a license because of the over-regulation in this economy. But in many economies there is a need for a specific licensing requirement where there is a problem. Many countries have this, for example, in alcohol. Ukraine has it in alcohol.

When you have these two laws potentially coming together, you get contradictions. And when the other law overrides, you potentially get situations where the general licensing law will undo the good that is provided in the CD licensing law. Because of this potential legal confusion, we think there is a need to sort things out.

Given that that is the case, we are going to suggest a two-track approach. The first track is to implement the law. A law exists and a presidential decree has been passed. Perhaps we may be wrong. Perhaps the law and the presidential decree will provide sufficient basis to combat piracy and end piracy. We can detect that through seizures that will continue to take place by the international industry. We know how to assess those discs that are seized to determine whether or not they come from Ukraine. If piracy ends, if there are no more pirated CDs coming from Ukraine, we should recognize that and reflect it in our policy.

Secondly, we should also look at the law and find out where the major weaknesses and problems are; where those principal legal contradictions might exist. Then we can work together to identify steps or provisions that could clarify or resolve those problems. Then it would again be in Ukraine's hands to determine how it might legislatively proceed to resolve those issues in a way that is legally binding.

Q: Are we talking weeks, months, or is it indeterminable?

A: I really can't say. It really would be wrong for me to predict for two reasons. One is because I don't know, and two, because it is the responsibility of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to handle this.

Q: Without an agreement on combating CD piracy, is there a way out of the sanctions for Ukraine?

A: These sanctions are specifically addressing the problem of piracy and the fact that up until now Ukraine has not taken actions that would adequately stop the piracy of CDs and the exports to the rest of the world, which are continuing to occur. So that problem needs to be resolved.

Frankly, it's not only important to the United States, it is also important for Ukraine because it is hurting Ukraine's image and reputation internationally. It's reducing the willingness of investors to come to Ukraine and put their money here.

Ukraine has a lot of potential; it has a lot of high-tech potential. We have talked to the international recording industry, for example, and they are willing to sign contracts with the Ukrainian recording industry and to produce CDs locally here in Ukraine and to produce them with Ukrainian covers so that they could be sold, in fact, in this market for probably 15 to 20 hrv ($3-$4), which is very cheap. But the only way they are going to do that is if there is an intellectual property regime that protects their product.

Similarly with software, we have talked with many, many potential investors, including American investors who would like to do programming in Ukraine. But they are not going to do it if they feel like they are going to pay somebody under a contract, get a particular product and then - bam - it's on the streets and somebody is copying the product.

Q: What about the poultry sanctions imposed on the U.S. by Ukraine? Does the U.S. consider them to be a direct response to its own sanctions imposed as a result of CD piracy in Ukraine?

A: We don't think they are linked. We have been discussing poultry issues with Ukraine for several months. These were part of the dialogue at our bilateral economic meeting, which took place at the end of November.

The emphasis that we have placed so far is to try to find a resolution that is consistent with WTO procedures and practices. The problem that arose is that the Ukrainian veterinary service wanted to inspect every single American poultry producer that would export to Ukraine and certify those poultry producers.

That is a level of arbitrariness that we simply do not allow and is not consistent with WTO procedures and practices. What is normal practice is for countries to negotiate between themselves a veterinary certificate that specifies exactly what vital sanitary processes are employed in the production of a particular product, in this case poultry. And then we guarantee and certify it through our veterinary services that the certificate is upheld.

We are willing to sit down with the Ukrainians and negotiate that and review what is reasonable, as long as it has a scientific basis. The Ukrainians have now indicated that they are willing to do that. It is important that we get our vets to talk to one another, but this kind of case-by-case review of every single American poultry manufacturer as a basis for export is simply inconsistent with international practice, and that we cannot and will not do.

Q: I have heard that the real reason for the Ukrainian decision to impose poultry sanctions on the U.S. and the way it is being presented is to clear out the market and make room for their own developing domestic poultry producers. Has the U.S. government heard similar rumors?

A: I have heard those rumors but have not seen them substantiated in any significant way. One of the reasons why I have a hard time fully accepting it is because I don't think there is an oversupply on the Ukrainian market. As far as I know there is one manufacturer in Ukraine that is capable of producing frozen poultry and getting it out on a wide part of the Ukrainian market, and they certainly can't even come close to satisfying the needs, probably, throughout Ukraine.

In fact we have provided some support and technical advice to that particular producer, because there is absolutely no threat of competition in the American industry, given that there is such an unmet need in the Ukrainian market.

We can all speculate as to what other factors may be behind this, but I don't honestly believe that competition with the domestic industry is one of them.

Q: Another rumor floating - and these are Ukrainian allegations regarding a supposedly underhanded reason for the U.S. imposition of economic sanctions on Ukraine - is that they were conjured up to relieve the pressure the U.S. is feeling from its steel industry to limit the import of foreign steel, including Ukrainian, into the country. Please comment?

A: It is actually not true. If you look at the sanctions that were imposed - the additional tariffs that were imposed on $75 million of exports to the United States - if you look at the list there are no steel products, or if there are, there are virtually no steel products on that list.

Initially there was a list that was published of possible products that would be sanctioned, and it did include steel, but the actual list that was implemented, the $75 million list, does not include steel.

To be fair, there are other steel issues between the United States and Ukraine, and I do not want to make light of the fact that steel trade between the United States and Ukraine is a problem. There are issues here, and Ukraine has been one of the countries that have been involved in a broader American consideration of the international steel market and how it affects American producers. But that's not a Ukraine-specific issue, it relates to many, many steel producers throughout the world.

Q: Finally, Ukraine's National Deputy Oleksander Zhyr [head of the ad hoc parliamentary commission investigating the death of journalist Heorhii Gongadze and the associated scandal on digital recordings made by Mykola Melnychenko] stated on a Radio Liberty program yesterday [February 7] that the Melnychenko tapes are authentic. What's the response of the U.S. government, and could this determination change the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine or its leadership?

A: First of all, I don't have a basis for determining whether the tapes were accurate or not, nor does the U.S. government. The FBI and the Department of Justice have not been involved in the analysis of the tapes, nor have they hired anybody to be involved in the analysis of the tapes.

Apparently this expert must have been hired independently, because we certainly did not do that. We, therefore, also do not have access to the information. There have also been other analyses that have indicated that it is difficult to determine the authenticity of these recordings, because they are not really tapes - they are digital recordings, and they are subject to manipulation. It is virtually impossible to detect those manipulations.

I think that for us to get into the question of whether the tapes are authentic or not is not particularly helpful or useful. What is important for us to continue to do is to stick to the very core basic values that the United States believes in. Gongadze's death and the tape scandal around it have highlighted two sets of issues: freedom of speech and rule of law, and whether or not those basic principles are honored and respected in Ukraine.

The most fundamental way to reinforce those basic principles of free speech and rule of law is to have a credible, thorough, transparent investigation into the Gongadze case. That's where we should be focusing our attention.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 17, 2002, No. 7, Vol. LXX

| Home Page |