EDITORIAL: Is there a U.S. policy toward Ukraine? (09/19/04)

EDITORIAL

Is there a U.S. policy toward Ukraine?

In recent months there has been a flurry of visits to Ukraine by various U.S. officials, both from the executive and the legislative branches of government. Among the visitors were Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in March, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a Senate delegation led by John McCain in August, Sen. Richard Lugar at the beginning of September and, most recently, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary ofState for European Affairs John Tefft, later in the month.

After reviewing the news reports about these visits, we clearly see that there consistently are only two issues regarding Ukraine with which the United States seems to be concerned: 1. that Ukraine's presidential elections be democratic and fair; 2. that Ukraine keep its military contingent in Iraq - the fourth largest sent by any country and the largest from a non-NATO country - as part of President George W. Bush's much-vaunted "coalition of the willing" (in Sen. John F. Kerry's construct this is "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed"). Hmmm. Sort of reminds us of the days when there was only one issue driving U.S.-Ukraine relations: in the early years of Ukraine's independence that was the dismantling of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, while later the primary issue was the closing of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant.

To make matters worse, oftentimes it seems as if the United States today is returning to the much-criticized "Russia first" policy of the past - expressions of which were found during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

That today there are only two Ukraine-related issues about which the U.S. is concerned has been brought home by the most recent reports that President Leonid Kuchma and his cohorts "hoped the Iraq deployment would encourage Washington to turn a blind eye to any irregularities in the 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections." (See "Is Washington sending mixed signals to Ukraine?" on page 2 of this issue.)

Dr. Taras Kuzio notes that "Kyiv is rife with speculation that a secret deal was struck during Mr. Rumsfeld's visit. ... Under the alleged deal, what 'Ukraine provides to the U.S. in Iraq is the main guarantee that Washington does not subject Kyiv to being ostracized in the event of dubious results in the Ukrainian presidential election' (Kyiv Weekly, August 20). Thus, official threats to withdraw Ukrainian troops made before Mr. Rumsfeld's visit to Ukraine were simply a bargaining ploy." He goes on to state that these rumors are probably false, but notes that Washington "continues to send mixed signals to Kyiv."

And, that, of course, is the main problem with current U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Washington, it seems, is content to focus on two issues, but without thinking through all the possible ramifications and results. In this simplistic formulation, there is no room for nuance. Nor is there room for other issues. What happened, for example, to permanent normal trade relations, to the continuing aftereffects of Chornobyl, to trafficking in women; why is immigration from Ukraine not an issue to be addressed? And that's just scratching the surface of what should be considered within the framework of U.S.-Ukraine relations.

Which leads us to ask a simple question: Does the United States even have a "Ukraine policy"?

| Home Page |