Although not always understood or recognized by many in the Ukrainian American community, Ukraine is fortunate to have numerous friends among Washington’s foreign policy community – in government, Congress, think tanks and NGOs. In the last three years, because of Moscow’s invasion of and ongoing intervention in Ukraine, this support has escalated.
Support for Ukraine did not begin in 2014, but has been evolving for a long time. Ukraine’s many friends have been instrumental in shaping America’s strong backing of Ukraine. Having committed influential friends matters. I have seen this evolution up close.
When I started working at the Helsinki Commission in late 1981, conditions in Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet empire were bleak. The human rights situation was appalling. Dissent was brutally suppressed. A couple of days after I joined, the commission held a hearing marking the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group – many of whose members were languishing – and some who later died – in the Gulag. At that time and slightly later, even as changes started taking hold in the Soviet Union with glasnost and perestroika, it was largely the Ukrainian American community and the U.S. Congress, especially the Helsinki Commission, that paid the most attention to Ukraine.
So, before 1991, Congress took the lead on matters Ukrainian, including focusing on human rights abuses, prisoners of conscience, the plight of the Ukrainian Churches (especially the banned Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church), and calling for Ukraine’s right to self-determination – even when that seemed a distant prospect. As the Soviet Union’s final days approached, it was Congress that took the lead in pushing for U.S. recognition of Ukraine’s independence.
Beyond these efforts, Ukraine was a relative terra incognita in the Washington policy world and even more so outside of D.C. Attention to Ukraine by foreign policy experts, primarily at the State Department, existed and did increase over time, especially on human rights. Still, such attention and expertise was minimal primarily because Ukraine was not an independent state with its own separate foreign policy, but a colony. Moscow was the capital; that was where the action was.
The reality of independence dramatically changed that, and many other policy actors soon emerged on the Washington scene. The executive branch, especially the State Department, quite appropriately took the lead in setting and implementing a policy that – even if at times imperfectly – genuinely recognizes that an independent, democratic Ukraine is essential for a Europe whole, free and at peace.
I have witnessed first-hand the dedicated commitment of Ukraine’s many friends in the U.S. government who have a deep understanding that it is in our interests, and consistent with our values, to support Ukraine. This has only become more apparent since Russia’s invasion. The vast majority of people in the U.S. government, as well as at NGOs and think tanks working on Ukraine, are not of Ukrainian origin. However, there are also many with Ukrainian roots in the State Department, Defense Department, intelligence community and other federal entities who have spent at least some, if not most, of their professional careers working on Ukraine.
Congress, of course, continues to play a highly active role with respect to Ukraine, both in terms of political support and concrete assistance. I plan to address the special role of Congress in future columns, mindful that this year we commemorate the 100th anniversary of congressional engagement with Ukraine.
While government quite logically sets U.S. policy and support for Ukraine, the non-governmental sector in DC plays a vital role. Think tanks and NGOs hold conferences and other events that help to inform policy makers and issue reports that provide recommendations which shape policy discourse and often find their way into specific U.S. government policies. Think tanks and institutes active over the decades include the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment, Kennan Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council has been especially dynamic since 2014 with its reports and other publications and in hosting numerous events and meetings with Ukrainian officials, U.S. policy makers and experts.
Washington-based NGOs that also have a presence in Ukraine, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), as well as the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation and the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, have been essential players on the Washington Ukraine policy and assistance scene, bringing together Ukrainian officials and experts with the Washington policy community, holding conferences and roundtables and otherwise informing policy makers.
Ukraine has had many prominent Americans as friends. Few individuals did more than Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most prominent foreign policy figures of our time, who passed away on May 26 at the age of 89. He played an invaluable role, especially in the 1990s, to help the U.S. foreign policy establishment understand the importance of Ukraine to our national security.
Among the most committed, prominent and influential friends of Ukraine have been former U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine, notably Roman Popadiuk, William Miller, Steven Pifer, William Taylor and John Herbst. Many other former officials have been influential in pressing for favorable policies towards Ukraine, including David Kramer, Robert McConnell, Paula Dobriansky and Melanne Verveer. The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation has recently brought many of them and others from the NGO and think-tank world together in its Friends of Ukraine Network.
The UCCA’s Washington office, the Ukrainian National Information Service (UNIS), continues to advocate with policy makers as it has for decades. New entities have emerged, such as the American Center for a European Ukraine. There are also organizations based outside of Washington, such as the Center for U.S.-Ukraine Relations (CUSUR), which has held numerous conferences bringing together policy experts from the U.S. and Ukraine. Mind you, this is far from a complete list of institutions or individuals involved in setting or influencing U.S. policy toward Ukraine, including D.C.-area based universities.
Clearly, Washington’s Ukraine world is large and vibrant. It is not unusual for there to be several events on the same day either entirely devoted to Ukraine or that include a substantial Ukraine component, whether in Congress, think tanks or NGOs. Most are attended by non-Ukrainians, underscoring the interest and involvement of Americans beyond those of Ukrainian heritage. That is a testament to how important Ukraine has become to the United States and how many people not of Ukrainian extraction genuinely care about Ukraine.
And this is a good thing, both for the United States and for Ukraine.
Orest Deychakiwsky worked for more than 35 years as a policy adviser at the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), an independent agency of the U.S. government, before retiring at the end of April. He served on numerous official U.S. delegations to conferences of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (and its predecessor, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) and was an international election observer at several dozen elections in 10 countries. He was a founding member and president of The Washington Group and worked with the human rights organization Smoloskyp. He has appeared at various policy and media forums addressing Ukrainian topics.
While at the Helsinki Commission, Ukraine and Ukraine-related issues constituted a significant part of his portfolio. In this and future columns, Mr. Deychakiwsky says he hopes to provide perspectives based on his experience and insights.