“Is there any chance that Ukrainian-American relations, now experiencing hard times, might improve significantly?” An American diplomat well acquainted with Ukraine, its specifics, and situation, told The Day that this is certainly possible and it should be this way. But first we have a long and involved way to go, along which we have to learn many lessons (he meant primarily the Ukrainian government). At the same time, some Ukrainian experts say that in the future the relationship can reach its summit similar to the one we had, for instance, in 1998. Today, “taking into consideration all that has happened, we should be very cautious.” President Kuchma in his message to Verkhovna Rada spoke of the need to establish a constructive dialog with the US. The will to develop the relations, at least on individual issues strategically important for both countries, was also felt in the latest statements of American diplomats, in part, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steven Pifer, and Ambassador of the United States to Ukraine Carlos Pascual. A conference dedicated in general to the problems of the development of civil society in Ukraine, organized by the Carnegie Foundation and George Washington University, which took place recently in Washington, demonstrated that the “lower critical point” of the relationship is probably over. However, this does not mean that in the future everything will be fine, the more so that it seems that at present neither of the sides has worked out its strategic view or is ready to make it public.
Recently Washington has repeatedly expressed its positive view on Ukraine’s sending the CBR battalion to Kuwait and made no secret of the fact that this had influenced the improvement of the relationship. There is no doubt in Washington that Ukraine in this way has contributed to the actions of the common democratic coalition, though nothing has yet been said about how this will impact on the future. On the other hand, nobody calls in question the importance of Ukraine as an independent, democratic state. Zbigniew Brzezinski in his speech at the conference repeated his old thesis: a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is very important for Russia’s democratic development. The applause with which the audience met this statement was evidence that this thesis had not lost its popularity among American experts. However, on the other hand, today both diplomats and politicians tend to avoid geopolitical theses.
Traditionally it is considered that Ukraine has carried out a major transformation in its process of transition from a Communist regime. Another customary statement is that there are many things still to be done to further the democratization of the society, establishing democratic institutions, strengthening the free press, and market reforms. These theses were heard in the statements of Paula Dobriansky, Carnegie Foundation experts Michael McFaul and Thomas Carothers, and Steven Pifer. Obviously the US is convinced that only Ukraine’s general democratization will further improve its image and its relations with other states. The view of Brzezinski, who said that the American perception of Ukraine has gone from ignorance through arrogance to persistence in its contacts, and the one of editor-in-chief of Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza Adam Michnik, “President Bush concentrates so much on President Putin that he has no time to notice the existence of a state with 50 million people,” are all evidence of the fact that there is no single view of Ukraine. However, some eternal questions remain. They say in Washington that the US will thoroughly follow the process of preparing and conducting the presidential elections, implying that much will depend on the way these elections are held and their result. The president’s suggestions on the political reform are being closely considered. No evaluations have been made public so far. A representative of the US State Department in an off-the-record talk with The Day’s correspondent did not agree with the thesis that Washington’s policy toward Ukraine after changing US administrations contributed to Ukraine’s internal situation developing under a scenario that would lead to misunderstanding, and that isolation policy could not improve the situation.
There are also other tendencies. Thomas Carothers, in part, calls on Ukrainian people to be more patient, citing Argentina as an example. American experts opine that in the 1990s both sides had too great and at times even absurd expectations. Anders Бslund, who has advised many governments in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, after his recent talks with Ukrainian oligarchs concluded that at least some of them are “not oligarchs but ordinary members of the bourgeoisie” and advises we view them precisely this way.
Speaking about details, on the one hand, the United States, as stated by Paula Dobriansky and Steven Pifer, and, in general, by many others in recent months, are prepared to give Ukraine any assistance in its joining Euro-Atlantic structures and the WTO. Immediately after the conference, Vice Premier Mykola Azarov received a rather warm welcome in Washington. It was stated after his visit that the Unites States has lifted the FATF sanctions and all obstacles were removed to signing protocol on market access markets, which is necessary for WTO accession. On the other hand, there is still concern about the situation with the agrarian sector, which is seen as the Ukrainian government’s will to renew centralized control.
One might well conclude from the various statements made that this is precisely the moment — when the post-Iraq world order is being formed, when new views are still being worked out and outdated ones discarded — could be utilized by Ukraine with maximum profit, the more so that, as The Day was told in diplomatic circles, now Washington will begin a post-Iraq rethinking of its former ideas about foreign policy, which resulted in traditional allies behaving not in the way they were expected.
