LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (10/20/96)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Clinton adviser comments on "spin"

Dear Editor:

I am responding to Eugene Iwanciw's letter published October 6 with respect to "political spin and earmarks." I was surprised by Mr. Iwanciw's misunderstanding of certain facts. First, Mr. Iwanciw states that "the $330 million in grants under the Freedom Support Act and other accounts" provided to Ukraine in Fiscal Year 1996 "reflects the undelivered assistance mandated for previous years." This statement is untrue. The $330 million includes FY96 Nunn-Lugar and USDA funds as well as FY96 FREEDOM Support Act monies. Further, this figure does not even include major trade credits that the government has provided.

Second, it is quite understandable that a large amount of appropriated funds had not been spent since the $225 million provided for in the FY 96 budget was not even appropriated until February 1996, more than four months into the fiscal year.

Third, our purpose is to assist reformers like President Leonid Kuchma make changes in Ukraine that benefit Ukrainians; it is not to spend taxpayers' money for the sake of spending money. We did not rush assistance money out the door in Ukraine before the environment was conducive to reform. As a result, we are able to do more good today.

There is no need, even in this election year, for partisan bickering when it comes to Ukraine. No country is more important to United States foreign policy than Ukraine. Today it receives more assistance than any other FSU country and ranks third in the world for U.S. foreign assistance. Next week I will be making my fourth trip to Ukraine in the past year as co-chair of the Sustainable Economic Cooperation Committee of the newly formed Binational Commission headed by President Kuchma and Vice President Al Gore. During these meetings we will be discussing Ukrainian priorities to make the most of our various programs. We are working with Ukraine on a continuing basis to support its economic and democratic transformation.

Ukraine is a nation reborn. It is critical that it succeed as an independent market democracy. We will continue to work with the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people to help insure this result.

Ambassador Richard Morningstar
Washington

The writer is special advisor to the president and secretary of state on assistance for the NIS.

Iwanciw's letter distorts the record

Dear Editor:

As members of the Ukrainian Americans for Clinton-Gore Committee, we believe it is in Ukraine's and America's interest to have President Bill Clinton re-elected. That's why it's so important to point out how grossly Eugene Iwanciw distorts the record on U.S. assistance to Ukraine in his October 6 letter to The Ukrainian Weekly.

Simply stated, these are the facts: "In 1996, the United States has led the international community to mobilize $1.9 billion in financial commitments (to Ukraine). Ukraine is the third leading recipient of U.S. assistance - $330 million in grants and $675 million in bilateral credits for 1996."

Those aren't our words. They are taken verbatim from the September 19 joint statement - approved by Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma and America's Vice-President Al Gore - announcing the creation of the U.S.-Ukraine Binational Commission.

Mr. Iwanciw can spin it anyway he wants, but clearly, President Kuchma and Vice-President Gore are better informed than he is about the level of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.

We acknowledge that this is a political statement designed to encourage Ukrainian Americans to vote for Clinton-Gore in 1996. For that, no political spin is necessary; all we have to do is tell the truth about U.S.-Ukrainian relations, and you don't have to take our word for it, or Mr. Iwanciw's. Just look at the joint Kuchma-Gore statement: "This partnership (U.S.-Ukraine)," it says, "has already produced tremendous dividends for both countries and for global security." We couldn't have said it any better.

Under President Clinton's leadership, Ukraine and the United States have developed a wide range of political, economic, military and cultural relationships all designed to insure Ukraine's continued independence. The world is a better place as a result. We want to keep that going. That's why we encourage all Ukrainian Americans to cast their ballots in November for President Clinton and Vice-President Gore.

Orest Dubno
New Haven, Conn.

Andrew Fedynsky
Rocky River, Ohio

Julian Kulas
Chicago

Why Ukrainians should choose Dole

Dear Editor:

I am responding to a letter to the editor in your September 29 issue. I take issue with what Mr. Ripecky wrote.

It is true that Myroslav Medvid was denied entrance to this country by our State Department that supposedly was run by Republicans. However, the fight to allow Mr. Medvid to stay in this country was led by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, a conservative Republican. Did the Democrats care about this issue? Absolutely not.

With the future of Boris Yeltsin in Russia now unclear, and the danger of Russian imperialism returning, it is Bill Clinton that has put Ukrainian independence in jeopardy. Bill Clinton only gave Ukraine financial assistance after Ukraine returned nuclear weapons to Russia. In other words, Mr. Clinton left Ukraine virtually defenseless against its historical enemy. Ukraine would not have gotten a penny if the weapons were not returned to Russia. For a liberal like Mr. Clinton, it is Russia first and Ukraine last.

On the contrary, it is the conservative Republicans that understand what a menace Russian imperialism is. Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and Democrats criticized him for that. Pre-sident Reagan also funded anti-Communist forces all over the world, and his goal was the defeat and dismantling of the Soviet Union. Liberal Democrats like Mr. Clinton just did not get it, and they still don't.

If the Democrats won the presidency in the 80s, Ukraine would not be free today. Let's not leave the same liberals that did not see Soviet Communism as a problem with renewed access to power. Ukrainian Americans should vote for Bob Dole.

Stefko M. Kuropas
Schaumburg, Ill.

A new project links Michigan, Ukraine

Dear Editor:

Michigan and Ukraine have many important links - between our people, through trade, and by sharing a common culture and heritage. I am pleased to report that I have secured congressional approval of a project that will help strengthen these links further.

Now Michigan and Ukraine will have important environmental and research links. The Ukrainian Land and Resources Management Institute, which would provide help for the clean-up of Chornobyl and other important environmental needs, would be developed jointly by the Ann Arbor-based Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM) and the Ukrainian government. The institute, based in Kyiv, would provide much-needed information on sustainable land uses to help agriculture flourish, to ensure that land is developed responsibly, and to identify environmental challenges that will need a response.

You can be sure that I will continue to pursue these efforts to respond to the Chornobyl tragedy and continue economic reforms in Ukraine.

David E. Bonior
Washington

The writer is the Democratic congressman representing the 10th District of Michigan.

Clinton's message: clear, unambiguous

Dear Editor:

In his letter of October 6, Eugene Iwanciw accuses President Bill Clinton of spinning facts so as to deliver a misleading message about his record on Ukraine.

Anyone who has followed the relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine over the past four years knows that the message delivered by the Clinton administration has been clear, unambiguous and resounding. We can hardly imagine a president who would be more outspoken and enthusiastic in his support for Ukraine. The powerful symbolism of his meetings with President Leonid Kuchma and the many substantive steps he has taken to forge a genuine partnership between our two countries have propelled Ukraine to the center stage of world affairs.

Though we supported the earmarks for Ukraine, we do not believe that the administration's opposition represented a breach of faith toward Ukraine. Nor was it a departure from past precedents. Having spent many years in Washington, Mr. Iwanciw knows that every administration has opposed earmarks as a matter of principle, as an encroachment on its executive discretion over foreign policy. This does not diminish the fact that President Clinton and his team have been both zealous and effective in marshaling aid for Ukraine in a very difficult period, when foreign aid appropriations have been severely slashed under the Republicans' budget-cutting ax.

Contrary to Mr. Iwanciw's charge, the $330 million in grant assistance proposed by the administration in its 1996 projections were designated for new programs, and did not include monies held over from previous years. It is true, that in the first two years of Ukrainian independence, while President Leonid Kravchuk was in office, the United States withheld some of its economic assistance, as it waited for the Ukrainian government to implement crucial economic reforms. This was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Had the monies been spent on aid to collective farms and corrupt, unreformed enterprises, these monies would have been wasted.

Now that reforms and privatization have moved forward and inflation has slowed, these funds are being released at an accelerated rate. They will bring far greater benefits to Ukraine as they will be utilized by more qualified Ukrainian institutions which have developed more management experience and qualified staff.

Mr. Iwanciw fails to mention that in addition to direct U.S. funding, the president worked aggressively to place Ukraine and the Chornobyl shutdown at the top of the G-7 agenda. He leveraged $1.9 billion in international commitments for Ukraine in 1996 and $675 million in trade credits, and an additional $67 million in humanitarian assistance. Clearly, the president has gone well beyond the mandates we fought for.

At the very least, the Clinton record must be viewed in its entire context. The earmark issue should not be viewed (or "spun") in isolation.

To the extent that Mr. Iwanciw's missive is calculated to draw votes away from President Clinton on the eve of the election, it is worth considering what we might encounter should Bob Dole beat the odds and win the White House.

Recently the Dole/Kemp campaign announced that it would appoint Steve Forbes to the Dole Cabinet. This is the same Steve Forbes who just last month, as editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine, published one of the most scurrilous and blatant pieces of Ukrainophobic propaganda imaginable.

If confirmed as secretary of the treasury, Mr. Forbes is likely to have great influence over U.S. monetary policy, including foreign aid and foreign investment programs, such as IMF loans for Ukraine. Should Mr. Forbes' views on Ukraine hold sway with a President Dole, the need for Congressional earmarks would become much more urgent, as we would need to counter open hostility and anti-Ukrainian militancy in the White House. (We should remember that Mr. Forbes refused to publish rebuttals to Paul Klebnikov's chauvinistic fantasy on the grounds that they were coming from "Ukrainian nationalists." To paraphrase Yogi Berra, this sounds like deja vu and Chicken Kiev all over again.)

In contrast to Forbes, Clinton's advisers - Melanne Starinshak Verveer, Carlos Pascual, and Taras Bazyluk to name a few - have demonstrated not only sensitivity, but a sophisticated understanding, and a deep and unwavering personal commitment to Ukraine. We know that these are individuals we can count on to speak out in defense of Ukraine, and to make our voices heard.

Mr. Iwanciw knows full well that the risk of a backlash against Ukraine and against foreign aid in a Republican administration is very real. Two years ago, he was the first to accuse the Republican-controlled Congress of "isolationism and betrayal" for its all-out assault on programs that were crucial to Ukraine's future. This is not to say that Ukraine does not have its defenders on the Republican side of the aisle: Sen. Mitch McConnell, Foreign Relations Chairman Benjamin Gilman and CSCE Chairman Chris Smith have distinguished themselves in the fight to preserve the foreign aid budget and to protect Ukraine's fledgling democracy. We greatly respect Eugene Iwanciw for his key role in raising consciousness and mobilizing support for Ukraine on Capitol Hill.

But this begs the issue: The Republicans, led by Sen. Jesse Helms and other reactionaries, have been hell-bent on destroying what is left of U.S. foreign assistance programs. In a spasm of narrow-minded zeal, they have drowned out the voices of reason in their own party. When it comes to foreign aid, we need to do more than demand a larger slice of a pie that is constantly dwindling. We need to insist that the pie itself be expanded so that the U.S. can play a more supportive, more meaningful role in the changes sweeping Ukraine, the Baltics and all of Eastern Europe.

The cost of foreign aid is a tiny fraction (1.2 percent) of our federal budget, and it can be a much more cost-effective way to promote democracy and international security than many of the defense priorities that are sacrosanct in the Republican budget.

Although foreign aid has never been a popular issue, President Clinton has been a strong advocate for a foreign aid budget that can give America the adequate resources and the flexibility it needs to strengthen the emerging democracies of the East. Granted, the president cannot claim exclusive credit for the excellent relations between Ukraine and the United States, but the credit he can legitimately claim is very substantial. Despite the negative and distorted press coverage Ukraine has received, the president has set a positive tone and a dynamic policy that made it possible for Ukraine to become the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the newly independent states. The establishment of the Gore-Kuchma Commission offers further proof that the partnership between Ukraine and the U.S. is becoming richer and ever more constructive, resilient and multi-dimensional.

We can trust the Clinton team to do right by Ukraine and, Mr. Iwanciw's spin notwithstanding, the administration clearly deserves the support of the Ukrainian American community.

Helen Cheloc
Bozhena Olshaniwsky
Andrew P. Kyzyk
Alexander B. Kuzma
Newark, N.J.

The letter-writers are leaders of the The Ukrainian American Democratic Association of New Jersey.