LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (04/07/96)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

U.S. policy motivated by national interest

Dear Editor:

In regard to the letter by Orest Deychakiwsky, "Reagan presidency's achievements ignored," (February 25) I would like to point out that when one attempts to compare various administrations' policies towards Ukraine, one must not forget that the common thread among them all was that it was motivated by the perceived national interest of the United States at the time.

This common factor allows one president (Ronald Reagan) to refer to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire," while another (Franklin Roosevelt) gave it legitimacy by recognizing it during the Ukrainian holocaust of 1933.

The present administration's positive attitude toward Ukraine also finds its origin in American national interest. The Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal was a direct threat to American security. The denuclearization of Ukraine will reduce this threat. This could never happen if Ukraine was under Russian control.

Leaving only Russia with nuclear weapons may in the future define U.S. national interests in the region. Russia can remain a potential threat to American security. The United States, therefore, would not risk a confrontation if a revived Russia sought to turn a still economically weak, non-nuclear Ukraine into another Belarus. An independent Ukraine may no longer become as important to American national interests.

Ukraine should understand that, in international relations, policy is devised based on national interest and not sentiment.

Peter Skrobach
Toronto

Letter writers have short memories

Dear Editor:

Of the two recent items concerning President Bill Clinton, the colum by Myron Kuropas was by far the most objective and thought-provoking.

In a follow-up letter to the editor, by Andrew Fedynsky and Julian Kulas, writing on behalf of the Democratic Party, it is apparent that the authors have short memories. It appears they have forgotten what transpired when President Leonid Kuchma joined world leaders celebrating the United Nations' 50th anniversary on October 21-24, 1995. At that time, Presidents Clinton and Kuchma were both housed in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. When Ukrainian officials, including Foreign Minister Hennadiy Udovenko and Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak, requested a meeting between Presidents Clinton and Kuchma, they were refused. Instead, President Clinton spent most of the day, October 23, with Boris Yeltsin at the Roosevelt estate at Hyde Park, N.Y. How about that for a "slap in the face"?

Would a true friend so grossly snub President Kuchma? If you were in the same hotel with a friend who asked to see you, wouldn't you find time to spend at least a few minutes with him?

Who really is a friend to Ukraine? I refer to the article the February 4 issue of The Weekly by Eugene M. Iwanciw. In 1993, under the Clinton administration, to quote, "the Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), began to earmark higher levels of assistance for Ukraine... With the Republican takeover of Congress and the deteriorating political situation in Russia, the administration was unable to sway the Congress from its position of strong support for Ukraine".

As a result, $225 million has been earmarked for Ukraine and was signed into law on January 26. This is an increase of $75 million over 1995 levels and $65 million above the president's request. The credit for this goes to the Republican Congress, not to the administration.

Also in the follow-up letter, the fact that America now enjoys low inflation and interest rates is mentioned. However, the authors seem to have forgotten how this came about. When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, the Carter administration had left him with inflation rates and interest rates in double digits. Because of sound financial policies, both inflation and interest rates fell dramatically over the following years. By the time Mr. Clinton took office, inflation and interest rates were already under control. By continuing with similar policies, inflation and interest are both still low, but the credit for attaining such levels goes to President Reagan.

We now have a president who is inconsistent. As Dr. Kuropas, George Stephanopoulos, Bob Woodward and many other commentators have said, he changes his position at the slightest whim. At one time he is a "friend" to President Kuchma and then, when staying in the same hotel, he completely snubs President Kuchma.

In 1992, during his campaign, Mr. Clinton said he would balance the budget in five years, but in 1995 he claimed that the Republican plan to balance the budget by 2002 was impossible. When he was asked to perform military duty for his country, President Clinton evaded it and even led demonstrations against his country in foreign lands; today he is demanding that young men and women perform military duty in foreign lands. Today he criticizes slowing down the growth of Medicare as proposed in the Republican budget, while just last year, he is on record as supporting the same measures.

Do we want four more years of inconsistency? I say, "no!"

Mary (Andreychuk) Crawford
Duncanville, Texas

An appreciation for Kuropas columns

Dear Editor:

I wanted to tell you that I enjoy reading The Ukrainian Weekly and especially Myron B. Kuropas' columns. They are very thought-provoking and full of many facts that are true. His comments are true not only for the Ukrainian fraternals, but for many other Eastern European fraternal societies. His article of March 17 would apply to many of those of Eastern European descent. God willing it will change.

Joseph M. Oros
Reading, Pa.

The writer is financial secretary of Assembly 261 of the Slovak Catholic Sokol.

| Home Page |