FOR THE RECORD: Ambassador Pascual's address at European University
Following is the text of an address by Ambassador Carlos Pascual to representatives of non-state educational institutions, rectors of Kyiv universities and faculty and students of the European University delivered on December 12, 2002.
CONCLUSION
The so-called Kolchuha affair has unfortunately arisen in the midst of this complicated domestic climate. It has exacerbated a crisis of confidence at the top between Ukraine and the United States. It caused NATO to act unanimously to downgrade the meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission in Prague from what could have been a triumphant summit to a ministerial gathering. Because of the extensive misinformation about this issue, let me provide a few facts.
In September [2002], the United States government advised the Ukrainian government that it had authenticated a recording of a July 10, 2000, conversation between President [Leonid] Kuchma and Mr. [Valerii] Malev that authorizes the transfer of the Kolchuha passive detection system to Iraq. The Kolchuha issue is important to us because it affects the safety of American and British pilots patrolling the Iraq "no-fly" zones. Just imagine: how could we face the mother of a pilot killed because of this system, and tell her that we never followed up because it was not diplomatically convenient? Moreover, the decision to transfer the system to a country that has consistently violated international law and human rights seems to contradict Ukraine's stated commitment to a "European choice."
Experts at the FBI's Electronic Research Facility conducted a laboratory analysis of the original recording and the original recording device provided by Mykola Melnychenko. The recording was reviewed numerous times using a range of technical and audio techniques that together can determine if a digital recording has been manipulated or distorted. The experts concluded that the recording is genuine and has not been altered. They detected no breaks in the recording, found no manipulation of the digital files and detected no unusual sounds that would have been present if the recording had been tampered with.
Three United States government departments confirmed that the recording includes the voice of President Kuchma. They indicated that it would be implausible that a conversation such as the one examined could be fabricated, even with highly sophisticated electronic equipment.
We are aware that some private groups have conducted analyses of copies of some of Mr. Melnychenko's recordings, but we have not been involved in such analyses and cannot comment on them. The Ukrainian government has told the United States government that it conducted an analysis of a recording of the conversation between President Kuchma and Mr. Malev, but the Ukrainian government admitted that it reproduced this recording from a version that is available on the Internet; that is, it did not examine the original recording. There has also been some confusion in the press about the use of the words "recording" and "tape." Regarding the conversation between President Kuchma and Mr. Malev, the FBI's analysis was done on the original digital "recording" of that conversation, and not on a "tape."
Some have asked why we have not provided the recording to the Ukrainian authorities. First, the Ukrainian authorities knew their analysis of an Internet copy would have no credibility; the fact that it was done for political purposes underscores that any information we might provide will be manipulated. Second, senior Ukrainian officials have repeatedly suggested that the conversation took place, but the real issue is whether there was a transfer. Hence, senior Ukrainian authorities show little concern over authorizing a military transfer in violation of U.N. sanctions.
Did an actual transfer of the Kolchuha system to Iraq occur? From the beginning of this episode, the United States government has said that, while we are certain of the authenticity of the July 10, 2000, recording, we do not know whether the transfer actually did occur. There is some information available to us that suggests it may have occurred. Ukrainian authorities invited a team of U.S. and British experts to Ukraine to establish that a transfer did not take place.
Faced with incomplete access to important documents and serious gaps in documentation in violation of Ukraine's export control process, the team was unable to rule out the possibility of a transfer of the Kolchuha system to Iraq. In particular, the team was not permitted to see the full investigation reports the government of Ukraine informed us had already been completed by the National Security and Defense Council, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Office of the Procurator General, as well as key contractual documents. Access to these documents, in full, had been promised to the team and was later denied.
The team also found serious flaws in the way that Ukraine's export control system is implemented. While Ukraine's export control system is supposed to have checks and balances, such checks either were not exercised or they were not documented, precluding a reconstruction of the events surrounding the authorization to sell the Kolchuha system in July 2000. Thus, the question of whether a transfer took place must remain open. Moreover, if further investigation by the United Nations is to prove useful, the Ukrainian government must first decide whether it will make available documentation denied to the U.S.-U.K. team. Otherwise, a United Nations team will face the same obstacles in assessing the question of a transfer as were faced by the team from the United States and the United Kingdom.
The way forward
Whatever the eventual resolution of the Kolchuha issue, the main challenge will be to re-establish the trust that is essential to building and sustaining any meaningful, long-term relationship. In principle, there are two choices on how we move forward on U.S.-Ukrainian relations. One is to leave doors open to possibilities for engagement and allow those possibilities to create new dynamics for cooperation. The other option is to say that our views are too divergent and foreclose stronger engagement between our nations.
For the United States, the latter makes no sense for U.S. interests, for Ukraine, or for the kind of Europe that we are hoping to shape. We will continue to pursue a broad strategy of engagement with Ukraine.
In September, the United States began a broad policy review of its relations with Ukraine. We continued this assessment while I was in Washington last week. In many ways, this review will be ongoing. We need to keep assessing incremental progress or backsliding, and then decide how best to respond. Several key points, however, are already clear.
Let me say a few words about NATO, because the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan approved at Prague presents a unique opportunity. When you think about NATO, you probably first think of a military alliance, and you would be correct. But it is a military alliance of countries based on a common commitment to shared values. What is NATO defending, if not democracy, freedom, the rule of law and the free market in its member-countries? How can an organization that makes decisions based on consensus function if its members do not share a commitment to the same fundamental principles? It would be contradictory and self-defeating to include members who are not committed to these fundamental values.
The Ukrainian government, well aware of what integration with European structures means, included the following in its core objectives in the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan: strengthen democratic and electoral institutions, strengthen judicial authority and independence, promote the continued development of civil society, fight corruption, money laundering and illegal economic activities. That is the road to NATO and European integration. It is a choice for bold political and economic reform.
If one looks at the history of NATO's enlargement, political issues have been the most fundamental factor in determining a country's ability to accede to membership. This was true in Spain and hinged on Spain's ability to overcome fascism. It was true with Greece and Turkey and the importance of those two countries reaching a political understanding. It was true in Poland, particularly in Poland's taking a strong stand against anti-Semitism. It is true now in the countries invited in Prague to become NATO members, which had to face tough issues such as how they handled minority rights, corruption, and non-proliferation.
And it will be true in Ukraine, as Ukraine contemplates the steps it needs to take toward NATO integration. NATO membership brings promise and privilege. It also means that each member-country accepts the responsibilities of democracy. This mandate includes freedom of speech, the rule of law, a genuinely free and transparent electoral process, and adherence to international non-proliferation standards.
These will be fundamental to the dialogue that will take place between NATO and Ukraine, not because Ukraine is being singled out, but because these are common expectations of all Alliance countries. There is no side door to NATO where shared values do not matter. There are no exceptions, there are no expedient "short-cuts." Ukraine's choice to integrate into Europe is just that - a choice made from the heart, a choice made without conditions or reservations because Ukraine truly believes the West is where it belongs.
The United States supports Ukraine's aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration. When we look at Ukraine, we see its great potential, we see the bright vision many Ukrainians have of Ukraine's future, and we know both rationally and in our hearts that this bright vision is achievable, that Ukrainians deserve nothing less than a democratic, prosperous, sovereign and secure nation fully integrated into Europe. When we see the enormous talent, creativity, tolerance and common sense of the Ukrainian people, we believe in your success. The challenge is getting from the present to that future we all know is possible.
Let me close with a reflection on the people in this room. You truly have the opportunity to shape your own future, as well as the future of this country. You are already doing so. Just in the past year, I have seen significant growth of the civil society and of Ukrainian citizens taking on the responsibility for their own future. We saw this in the high level of involvement of NGOs and citizens' groups in the parliamentary elections in March, and in the election results themselves, which showed that politics in Ukraine has moved to the center, rejecting extremes of left and right. We see it today, in the actions of courageous journalists who are fighting for media freedom.
I am inspired by the actions of ordinary Ukrainians and it makes me optimistic about Ukraine's long-term future.
You are helping to form the next generation, the next set of leaders, whether it be in business or in government. Set an example, because the youth of this country will follow you. You are building Ukraine's civil society. Challenge these young Ukrainians in your care to maintain their rights. That's a tremendous responsibility, but at the same time it's an enormous opportunity. The future of your country is in your hands.
CONCLUSION
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 12, 2003, No. 2, Vol. LXXI
| Home Page |