1994: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

In the United States: "Year of Ukraine"

Perhaps 1994 can best be described as a year of rapid change; change in the relationship of the United States and Ukraine and in the relationship of each government to its citizens.

Early in the year, Vice-President Al Gore proclaimed 1994 as the "Year of Ukraine." This slogan was reiterated numerous times by the Clinton administration, including by the president himself. While the meaning with which the slogan was proclaimed only served to disappoint the leadership of Ukraine, in many ways 1994 was the "Year of Ukraine." Policies of and events in Ukraine played a major role in shaping U.S. and international policy.

Whether relations between the Clinton administration and the Ukrainian-American community have improved during the course of the year is subject to debate, but during 1994 they did establish a more open channel of communications.

On January 6, after a major foreign policy speech in Milwaukee, Vice-President Gore met with a delegation of Ukrainian Americans. This was followed by a February 10 White House meeting between the leadership of the community and President Bill Clinton. In both meetings, community leaders expressed their concern about a U.S. foreign policy that seemed to focus almost solely on Russia while the administration continually reassured the community that Ukraine was important to the U.S.

Throughout the year, numerous follow-up meetings between the community leadership and administration officials, including National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, National Security Council (NSC) directors Nick Burns and Rose Gottemoeller, and Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States (NIS) James Collins took place. The meetings served as a forum for administration officials to brief the community on the status of relations between the United States and Ukraine, and for the community to voice its concerns about the direction of U.S. policy.

On February 10, the community leadership also met with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, to discuss its concerns. In 1993, Sen. McConnell became a leading spokesman for increased foreign assistance for Ukraine.

On a regular basis, the Washington offices of the Ukrainian National Association (UNA) and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) met with both administration officials and members of Congress and their staff regarding aspects of the bilateral relationship that was developing between Ukraine and the United States.

Ukraine emerged as a major focus of Congressional debate and activity throughout the year. Numerous congressional hearings on the NIS focused on issues pertaining to Ukraine. Early in the year, Ambassador Strobe Talbott testified before the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Later, Ambassador Collins testified before the Senate Appropriations' Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In April, UNA Washington Office Director Eugene Iwanciw testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Relations.

In May, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), known as the Helsinki Commission, held two hearings; one focusing on Ukraine and the other on Russia. Adrian Karatnycky, executive director of Freedom House, and Irina Isakova, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute and the head of the Department of U.S. Policy in European Post-Soviet Studies, Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada in Moscow, participated in the CSCE briefing on Ukraine. Ambassador Collins, Paul Goble, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ronald Sumy, professor of history at the University of Michigan, testified at the May 24 hearing on Russia, which also addressed Ukrainian issues.

The various hearings demonstrated both a gradual change in administration policy toward Ukraine and disagreement among experts about the relationship the United States should pursue with both Russia and Ukraine. Many members of Congress and outside experts remained critical of the Clinton administration's "Russia-first" policy.

Nowhere were the differences between the administration and Congress more evident than in the foreign aid appropriations process. On June 23, the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee adopted a foreign assistance bill which earmarked, from the $900 million NIS account, $150 million for Ukraine. In introducing this amendment, Sen. McConnell said, "I am moving to earmark funds for Ukraine once again, because I believe the administration will only provide assistance if they are directed to do so." He heavily criticized the administration for providing so little assistance to Ukraine, claiming that for "1991, 1992 and 1993, Ukraine has actually seen a little over $40 million" as contrasted to the administration plans to "spend $1.6 billion in Russia" in 1994.

On July 15, the Senate passed the Foreign Assistance Act for fiscal year 1995 with the Ukrainian earmark in place. Since the House failed to earmark aid to Ukraine, the item became a contentious issue when the House-Senate Conference Committee met on July 28 to resolve the differences between their respective bills. House Foreign Operations' Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) and the administration lobbied strongly against the provision, while Sens. McConnell, Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Phil Gramm (R-Texas), and Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) argued for the earmark. In a party line vote, with all the Democrats voting against, the House conferees voted not to accept the Senate provision. The conference did, however, agree to urge, but not mandate, $150 million of assistance to Ukraine, a compromise similar to one in 1993.

While the level of U.S. foreign assistance to Ukraine was an issue throughout the year, so was the method of delivery of that assistance. Many Ukrainian American community organizations found the foreign assistance grant process complicated and insurmountable. Most that succeeded to overcome the complexity of the application process were disappointed that their proposals were turned down. Many organizations also learned that they could not apply to work solely in Ukraine; they had to work in other nations as well. At the same time, complaints started to reach the community that Ukrainians participating in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs were forced to use Russian rather than Ukrainian in the training programs.

In February, The Wall Street Journal ran a two-part series on U.S. foreign assistance to Poland and Russia. The articles were a major indictment of U.S. foreign assistance. Many of the issues raised in the articles were similar to complaints being received from Kyyiv, i.e. most of the assistance went to U.S. consultants who expended the resources on travel, high salaries, and luxurious accommodations with little benefit provided to the recipient nation. Another frequently heard complaint was that assistance programs were not geared to the needs of Ukraine or other specific countries but were designed and implemented on a regional basis, i.e., all 12 countries within the NIS. These programs were often run out of Moscow and utilized only the Russian language.

U.S. policy toward Ukraine was not considered only on a bilateral basis. Often, the "Ukrainian issue" arose in a broader context. Increasing concern about an expanding Russian "sphere of influence," became both a focus of debate in Washington and the news media and a congressional issue.

The Central and East European Coalition, an ad hoc committee of 16 national organizations representing 12 Central and East-European ethnic groups including the UNA and the UCCA, began playing a greater role in Washington. At the end of 1993, the coalition initiated a grass-roots campaign against U.S. acceptance of a Russian "sphere of influence," which it dubbed "Yalta II." Throughout the year, the coalition met with various policy-makers, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. McConnell, Rep. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), and NSC officials Mr. Burns and Ambassador Richard Shifter.

Members of the coalition turned down an invitation to the White House to welcome Russian President Boris Yeltsin and, instead, held a press conference, aired on C-SPAN, calling attention to Russia's aggression against its neighbors and U.S. failure to oppose those policies. During its press conference, coalition members accused Russia of using "peacekeeping" as a cover for expansionism and noted that some foreign policy experts claimed that the United States traded Georgia for Haiti, i.e. the U.S. did not oppose Russian "peacekeeping in Georgia" so that Russia would not oppose a U.S. invasion of Haiti. The coalition also initiated another grass-roots campaign aimed at members of Congress regarding Russia's foreign policy.

Working as a team, the member-organizations of the coalition supported the earmark of foreign assistance to Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia; the expansion of NATO to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia; the cutoff of aid to Russia if Russian troops were not withdrawn from the Baltic states by August 31, and 28 specific recommendations for reform of foreign assistance.

The effectiveness of the coalition was first felt on March 24 when Sen. McConnell added an amendment on U.S. policy towards Russian acts of aggression to the Congressional Budget Resolution of 1994. A similar amendment by Sen. McConnell, enacted as part of the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, required the administration to report to Congress on Russian aggression against its neighbors. Senate passage of earmarked assistance to Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and numerous provisions on the expansion of NATO were also initiatives of the coalition. The NATO provisions were authored by Sens. McConnell, Hank Brown (R-Colo.), Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md).

During this period, a number of articles began appearing in newspapers and journals calling attention to Russia's claims of a "sphere of influence." In an August 8 op-ed in The Washington Post, columnist Lally Weymouth discussed the Senate initiatives and the Clinton administration's opposition to all of them. She wrote that "the message that [Rep. David] Obey and company [who actively promoted the administration's position] sent to Moscow was that Washington is pursuing a Russia-first policy." She went on to quote UNA Washington Director Iwanciw as saying: "If I were sitting in Ukraine, I would conclude that the U.S. isn't a very good ally and that Russia does not keep its commitments - and I'd have second thoughts about getting rid of my nuclear weapons. To Moscow, the message is, 'Whatever you want you will get.'"

During congressional consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act, the coalition was also successful in enacting three of its recommendations for reform of USAID. The amendments included a requirement that 50 percent of the funding be for country specific programs, a report on "steps being taken to include individuals and organizations with language of regional expertise in the provision of assistance," and a report to the Appropriations Committee on "each grant and contract."

Later in the year, the administration proposed legislation that would overhaul U.S. foreign assistance and USAID. While congressional committees began to review the proposals, time simply ran out. On December 12, Sen. McConnell, in a surprise move, announced plans to introduce legislation in January that would reorganize U.S. foreign assistance, abolish USAID, earmark assistance for Ukraine, and condition assistance to Russia based on its treatment of its neighbors.

The number of official Ukrainian delegations visiting Washington in 1994 was unprecedented. The year began with a January 23 visit by a 15-member economics delegation headed by Economics Minister Roman Shpek. The delegation met with U.S. officials from the Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture and Defense, the National Security Council, the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank, as well as with international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The meetings launched an almost yearlong effort to secure economic loans and credits for Ukraine, which came to fruition only near the end of the year.

In February, the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee, organized by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, held its first meeting in Washington. Ukrainians attending the meeting included Anton Buteiko, advisor to the President of Ukraine; Volodymyr Hryniov, people's deputy, Parliament of Ukraine; Kostiantyn Morozov, former minister of defense of Ukraine; Dmytro Pavlychko, chairman, Permanent Committee on Foreign Affairs, Parliament of Ukraine; Victor Pynzenyk, people's deputy, Parliament of Ukraine, former deputy prime minister for economic reform; Volodymyr Sumin, chairman, Council of Entrepreneurs of Ukraine; and Borys Tarasyuk, deputy minister of foreign affairs.

U.S. members of the Advisory Committee include: Counselor Brzezinski; Dwayne Andreas, chairman and chief executive officer, Archer Daniels Midland Co.; Frank Carlucci, former secretary of defense; Malcolm S. Forbes Jr., editor-in-chief, Forbes magazine; Gen. John R. Galvin (U.S. Army-Ret.), former supreme allied commander, Europe; Michael H. Jordan, chairman and chief executive officer, Westinghouse Electric Corp.; Henry Kissinger, CSIS counselor and former secretary of state; George Soros, Soros Fund Management.

On March 3, President Leonid Kravchuk visited Washington for the third time (his second visit as president). The highlight of the visit was a commitment by the United States to give greater economic assistance to Ukraine in light of the signing of the Trilateral Agreement on Nuclear Arms in January and the ratification of START I by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Leonid Kuchma made his second visit to Washington, albeit as a private citizen, in April. This was followed by a May visit by Deputy Prime Minister of Military and Defense Valeriy Shmarov, a June visit by Defense Minister Vitaliy Radetsky, and an October visit by Chairman of the Parliament Oleksander Moroz. Mr. Shmarov made a return visit in November as defense minister. In each of these visits, as well as with visits by lower-ranking officials, the Ukrainians met with key administration and Congressional leaders to discuss subjects ranging from economic relations to space cooperation. The parade of visitors culminated with the state visit of President Kuchma in November.

Washington's relations with Kyyiv throughout the year were also the product of events taking place within both countries and around the world. Clearly, Ukraine's ratification of START early in the year and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in November had major implications for the developing relationship. However, the political crisis in Ukraine in early 1994, which was resolved by parliamentary and presidential elections, also played a key role in the developing partnership. The election of former Communists to the new Parliament created concern among many Washington policy-makers. That was followed by the election of Mr. Kuchma as president. While the Clinton administration was, at first, cool to the new president, relations warmed quickly.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States went through a major political revolution on November 8 with the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress, a serious political setback for President Clinton. While the broader implications of this election are still being analyzed, it spells mixed blessings for Ukraine. While many Republican members of Congress, who have been supportive of Ukraine, are now in leadership positions, the elected-Republican majority has vowed to cut the federal budget, which could have adverse implications on foreign assistance. In other words, while Ukraine will probably be receiving an increased share of the foreign assistance pie, the pie may be much smaller.

On April 30, President Clinton signed into law the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, which brought to a close the long-running debate on the future of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). The law contains the U.S. International Broadcasting Act, which establishes within the U.S. Information Agency a nine-member Broadcasting Board of Governors "to direct and supervise" all U.S. non-military foreign broadcasting services, including Voice of America (VOA), Worldnet, RFE/RL Radio Cuba, TV Cuba, and Radio Free Asia, which is established by the act. While supporters of RFE/RL viewed this as a victory, concern about the future of all foreign broadcasting became an issue later in the year with major budget cutbacks for both VOA and RFE/RL.

The Foreign Assistance Authorization Act also extended for two years the "Lautenberg Amendment," which provides for the granting of refugee status to 1,000 Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox annually. At about the same time, the U.S. government announced that citizens of Ukraine would be eligible to apply for the Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery for 1994. Under this program 55,000 permanent resident visas will be allotted through a worldwide lottery.

In September, the Ukrainian American community, once again, celebrated the anniversary of Ukrainian independence in Congress with a reception organized by the Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (UACC) and the UCCA. Members of Congress, staff and Embassy officials participated in the celebration.

On September 12, Ukraine's first ambassador to the United States, Oleh Bilorus, bid good-bye and departed Washington for home. On October 21, President Kuchma announced that Yuriy Shcherbak, former minister of the environment and ambassador to Israel, would serve as the second ambassador of Ukraine to the U.S. Ambassador Shcherbak arrived in Washington just prior to President Kuchma's state visit.

As the year was winding down, the Department of State launched a reorganization effort which would divide the European Bureau into smaller components. Under the plan, Russia, Ukraine and the other former republics of the Soviet Union would be in a separate Eurasia Bureau. Key Members of Parliament including the incoming Chairman of the House International Relations Committee Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Hank Brown, spurred by protests from the UNA and UCCA Washington offices, put a hold on the reorganization, which will remain unresolved until 1995.

The year in Washington closed out with the December 12 celebration of the 45th anniversary of the Ukrainian Language Service of the Voice of America. The current chief of the Ukrainian Branch, Wolodymyr Bilajiw, recounted the history of the service, the important role it played in providing timely and accurate information to Ukraine during the Soviet period, and the changing role that VOA plays in an independent Ukraine.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, December 25, 1994, No. 52, Vol. LXII

| Home Page |