As the US Senate continues to approve nominees for cabinet posts, more accurate forecasts of new Administration’s policy will be possible. The so-called humanistic conservatism, a principle used by President George W. Bush to pick his team, might also work for the selection of foreign policy priorities. This principle provides for new goals to be reached on the basis of what has been done by the previous administration and denying any shotgun methods for reaching these goals. In fact, the new US administration has already been declared to be pragmatic. Pres. Bush’s brief period in office has already provided certain evidence of such a pragmatic approach in, for example, the White House statements on a more rigid policy toward Russia. What will Ukraine’s role be in this pragmatic foreign policy? What kind of role will it be? All this will be outlined by Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United States Kostiantyn HRYSHCHENKO who has been kind enough to answer questions from The Day.
What profile, in your opinion, will the new Republican administration have?
The makeup of the cabinet proposed by President Bush is unprecedented, including a large number of representatives of national minorities and women. Still, the experts have been unanimous that the president’s overriding criteria in selecting nominees for his government were those of professionalism and experience. Even Bush’s political opponents admit that he has a strong team of like-minded players with conservative Republican backgrounds.
For Ukraine, some of George W. Bush’s Cabinet members are old acquaintances. We have good relations with current Vice President Richard Cheney who when Secretary of Defense in elder Bush administration was one of the first to recognize Ukraine’s strategic importance and our country’s significance to American interests. We have also had constructive contacts with the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and new Secretary of State Colin Powell. Another well- known Republican to join the administration is new Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The fact that they all have successfully passed hearings in the Senate and have won almost unanimously bipartisan approval by American lawmakers clearly indicates their high standing in the US political establishment. Here also belongs Condoleesa Rice, the National Security Advisor, whose latest statements give reason to expect that Ukraine will take a high place on the list of US foreign policy priorities. Naturally, Ukraine will seek to develop friendly relationships with other members of the new cabinet.
Do you expect any changes in the foreign policy of the new administration?
Thus far, only top foreign policy planners have been approved by lawmakers, with the appointments of medium-level and lower-level officials for the State Department, the National Security Council and the Pentagon still underway. Judging by Colin Powell’s comments on the heels of his first official meeting with State Department staff, we can assume that the majority of leading experts who had worked for the old administration will continue in their posts.
There are sufficient grounds to hope that the new administration’s foreign policy will be as consistent and will follow the trail blazed by its predecessor. As the newly appointed secretary of state said, the United States is not going to encircle itself with a fence, by building a fortress of protectionism or creating an island of isolation. At the same time, some changes in foreign policy strategies are pending. According to the new administration, the US foreign policy will follow a balanced and well-considered political course; it will cease to be merely a reaction to emerging conflicts. The administration is considering more decisive steps in deploying the nation’s antimissile defense as well as reassessing some aspects of the US policy in the Middle East, Iraq, and South Korea.
How far is the new Administration prepared to go in creating a national antimissile defense?
With the formation of the new government still underway and the administration taking only its first steps, it is not easy to give a comprehensive answer. Judging by Pres. Bush’s pre-election declarations, it is clear that the issue will be high on his agenda. Time will tell whether the United States will be able to build an effective antimissile shield. Anyway, it is good to make political declarations when the technical and financial capabilities for their implementation exist. It is the two latter aspects that seem to be quite problematic. It should be borne in mind that the antimissile issue will hinge on the amount of bipartisan backing it will get from America’s lawmakers. Add here the declarations by Pres. Bush and those who develop his strategy admitting the need to take up the issue with US European allies, some of whom continue to take this initiative with a pinch of salt.
Could you, please, evaluate the prospects for Ukrainian- American relations under the George W. Bush administration? Such prospects rest on the present state of our relations. In this context, I would like to stress that 2000 was a unique year for our countries, displaying an abundance of political initiatives. Intensified cooperation took the place of decline. President Clinton made his second visit to Ukraine preceded by a visit of Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Energy Secretary Richardson came frequently to Ukraine, last time to attend the closure of the nuclear power plant in Chornobyl.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s prime minister, ministers of foreign affairs, defense, and finance, as well as the National Bank governor have all made trips to Washington. Sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Ukrainian-American Intergovernmental Commission’s Committee for Economic Cooperation were held.
Last year was dominated by the presidential elections in the United States and US politicians understandably focused more on domestic matters. With George W. Bush finally elected to his high office, new prospects for deepening Ukrainian-American cooperation arise. A fresh perspective is needed to assess the development of the strategic partnership between Ukraine and the United States. Clearly, given the Republican party’s avowed ideological concepts, one can predict that the new administration will take a pragmatic line on Ukraine, hinging its assistance on the pace of reforms in Ukraine. Since Ukraine also takes a pragmatic approach in its foreign policy, agreeing on goals for joint cooperation seems to be quite realistic. Moreover, I expect the new administration’s foreign policy toward Ukraine will be more systemic and will not be hostage to other regional factors, that is, it will be more “Ukrainian.”
How would you assess the state of Ukrainian-American economic relations?
I would emphasize that some positive developments took place last year. In eleven months of 2000, the trade turnover amounted to $960.6 million, or up by 33% from the 1999 level, showing a $644 million trade balance surplus for Ukraine.
Last year we also succeeded in settling some claims by US investors, stepping up cooperation with the World Bank and obtaining IMF agreement to resume its EFF program for Ukraine.
We were able to feel positive changes toward Ukraine on the part of US business circles that resulted in an increasing number of initiatives and projects proposed by the Americans. I am convinced that the positive trends in cooperation between Ukraine and the United States will continue in the future, while the successful pace of reforms will attract large-scale investment for the leading sectors of the Ukrainian economy, like energy, farming, and high tech. It would be appropriate here to mention a $50 million investment made by the Cargill Inc. to build a sunflower oil plant in Ukraine in 2000.
Problems remain. Anti-dumping investigations have been opened against some Ukrainian exporters of chemical and steel products. Along with protecting the interests of our exporters, there is an acute need to work out a flexible trade policy that should be based on our profound understanding of the specifics and strategic importance for Ukraine of the huge market in the United States.
