PERSPECTIVES: A Ukrainian thumb on the electoral scale (04/04/04)

PERSPECTIVES

by Andrew Fedynsky

A Ukrainian thumb on the electoral scale

With the field for the presidency now narrowed to George W. Bush and John Kerry, the country will be subjected to seven months of rallies, bumper stickers, yard signs, tracking polls and interminable commercials that market the candidates like a dose of Viagra or an herbal shampoo. That's when the campaigns aren't denigrating the other guy. Already, we've had accusations, distortions, attacks, counterattacks, with pundits dissecting what might have been said or done a year, a decade, a generation ago.

Yet for all the spin and hoopla, elections are a vital exercise, challenging the country to consider serious issues that go to the heart of what many interest groups care about most. For farmers, it's crop supports; for union members, the minimum wage. The NRA cares passionately about guns; the Brady Campaign wants to restrict them. Right to Life and NARAL have intense and opposing views on abortion. For seniors, it's Medicare. Most Cuban Americans look for candidates to condemn Castro. Most Jewish voters won't even consider them unless they support Israel. And so on, issue after issue.

Candidates weigh the different interest groups, promise to create jobs and protect national security, then hope they've assembled a coalition that can win a majority in the Electoral College. Well, I happen to belong to an interest group with strong views about Ukraine. So without apology, let me press my own thumb on the electoral scale.

Not so long ago Ukraine was a really hot issue - rightfully so. In 45 years of the Cold War, the U.S and the "Free World" invested trillions of dollars and countless lives in an epic struggle against the "Evil Empire." For Ukrainian Americans and other ethnics who had long contended that liberation of the Captive Nations would be the key to victory, Ukraine's independence in 1991 was sweet vindication, providing as it did the ultimate blow that knocked the underpinnings from under the Soviet Union. Out of the rubble, a new strategic alignment emerged, with Ukraine squarely at the center.

In his 1995 book, "The Grand Chessboard," former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski saw Ukraine's independence as essential to Russian democracy and critical to the unfettered, sovereign development of Poland, the Baltic states, the countries of the Caucasus, etc. Nearly a decade later, in a March 1 article, Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post makes a similar argument: "As giant Ukraine goes, so, likely, will slip most of the other former Soviet states that now live uneasily between the expanding European Union and Russia ..."

Those who follow events even casually know that Ukrainian democracy is in crisis. The independent press is being strangled. Opposition candidates and their supporters are harassed, even arrested on spurious charges. The ruling party is pushing dubious constitutional reforms to try to strip the next president of authority and shift power to the Parliament, after having bribed, manipulated and coerced its way into control two years ago, defying the electorate which had voted in an opposition slate.

Hovering over the growing mess is the specter of a rejuvenated Russian Empire, led by a former KGB operative who is openly pursuing a neo-authoritarian, neo-imperialist policy and finding resonance for both among his allies and agents in Ukraine.

All of this is an ominous departure. Despite shortcomings as leaders, both Presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma had worked to orient Ukraine toward the West, with the goal of someday joining NATO and the European Union. But for that, Kyiv needs strong support from the United States, the world's only superpower.

Recognizing what was at stake, the Clinton administration went to great lengths to strengthen Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy. Ukraine became the third largest recipient of American foreign aid, behind Israel and Egypt, and was a major focus of attention at the highest levels: President Bill Clinton visited Kyiv three times; First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton four times and Vice-President Al Gore five. The various secretaries of State and Defense visited Ukraine no less than 15 times. Senior Ukrainian officials reciprocated with visits of their own. Ukrainian Americans enjoyed the spotlight as well, with frequent visits to the White House, the Executive Office Building and the State Department to meet with National Security staff, Cabinet secretaries, the vice-president, indeed with the president himself.

Sadly, the Bush administration has dropped the ball on Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine has been cut by more than 50 percent. High-level visits to Kyiv have dropped from more than 25 (in eight years) to a mere two: both from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, largely on Middle East matters. Even on the symbolic Famine issue, the administration falls short, withholding support from Senate Resolution 202, which is blocked in committee because of apparent objection to the word "genocide."

And so Ukraine drifts. The Bush administration, to be sure, is not the only reason or even a principal cause for the sorry state of Ukrainian democracy or Vladimir Putin's neo-imperialism, but it's also clear that America's turn from Ukraine has been a significant contributing factor - one that's puzzling and deeply disappointing. Surely, Ukraine's failure as a state is not in America's strategic interest; a reconstituted Russian empire, even less so.

After a recent trip to Kyiv, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright argued persuasively that democracy in Ukraine is just as important for America as Middle Eastern democracy. Ukrainian American Republicans need to send that message to President George W. Bush as he seeks support in battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., where Ukrainian voters, working in coalition with others who oppose a rejuvenated Russian empire, can make the difference between victory and defeat. A campaign ad in The Ukrainian Weekly is no substitute for an active policy.

As for Sen. Kerry, Bush administration neglect of Ukraine has given him an opening to an energized constituency, but it's only an opening. Although U.S. support for Ukraine should be a no-brainer, the candidate still has to prove himself. Sen. Kerry's early co-sponsorship of the Senate's Famine Resolution is a positive sign, but it's just a start, a symbolic gesture. Ukrainian American Democrats need to let him know that.

Candidates will say and hopefully do what they sense the electorate wants, particularly when it's good for America. First, though, voters have to weigh in. So go ahead and put your thumb on the electoral scale. Mine's already there.

Andrew Fedynsky's e-mail address is: [email protected].

| Home Page |