ANALYSIS: Ukraine lags behind other NIS countries in terms of U.S. aid
by Eugene M. Iwanciw
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of State recently released the "U.S. Government Assistance to and Cooperative Activities with the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, FY 1996 Annual Report" detailing U.S. assistance through fiscal year 1996, which ended on September 30, 1996. The report makes interesting reading and demonstrates that assistance to Ukraine continues to lag behind most of the other 11 countries of the NIS.
Since the passage of the Freedom Support Act in 1992, the United States has budgeted over $9.3 billion of assistance to the NIS. Slightly over $1.3 billion has been budgeted for Ukraine. In over-all dollars, Ukraine ranks second in budgeted assistance behind Russia, which was apportioned slightly less than $4.3 billion. In per capita terms, however, Ukraine ranks ninth, leading only Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. The average per capita amount budgeted for the NIS is over 28 percent higher than the amount budgeted for Ukraine.
In terms of obligations of resources (the development of programs and signing of contracts), the picture for Ukraine looks dimmer. Ukraine ranks 10th in per capita obligations, leading only Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. The average per capita amount obligated for the NIS is over 40 percent higher than the amount obligated for Ukraine. That trend is also true in the category of actual expenditures on assistance. On a per capita basis, the expenditures for assistance to the NIS is over 40 percent higher than that for Ukraine.
The congressional earmarks of the past few years have served to slowly close the gap between Ukraine and the other NIS countries in the amount budgeted for assistance. Due to these earmarks, Ukraine trails the NIS average by only 28 percent as contrasted to 49 percent a year ago. However, the rates of obligations and expenditures (actual payment for assistance programs) continue to lag far behind the NIS average (by 40 percent). In other words, the administration is not committing or spending the money Congress is providing for Ukraine.
For example, the administration has obligated only $1.1 billion or 83.23 percent of the $1.3 billion budgeted for Ukraine. The NIS average is 91.10 percent, with most countries at over 95 percent. Ukraine ranks last in the amount obligated as a percentage of the budgeted amount. Of the $1.3 billion budgeted for Ukraine, the administration has actually spent only $866 million or 66.37 percent. The NIS average is 72.77 percent. A sampling of the rate of expenditures for other NIS countries includes: Russia at 75.18 percent; Moldova, 84.14 percent; Belarus, 76.94 percent; and Turkmenistan, 93.07 percent.
While the speed with which budgeted amounts are obligated and expended depends on a variety of factors, including the type of assistance and the cooperation between the United States and the recipient state, it is difficult to understand why Ukraine continues to lag so far behind all other NIS countries. The administration had proclaimed 1995 as the "Year of Ukraine" and in 1996 signed a "Strategic Partnership Agreement" with Ukraine. Ukraine is an important state, if one listens to the administration's rhetoric. One would expect, therefore, that every effort would be made to expedite assistance to Ukraine, especially as Ukraine is undergoing major economic reform.
The State Department report breaks down the assistance by programs and U.S. government agencies. One of the programs itemized is humanitarian assistance. Despite the terrible legacy of the Chornobyl accident, Ukraine ranks eighth in humanitarian assistance on a per capita basis. The amount is 14 percent below the NIS average, less than half of the assistance provided Belarus, and only a third of the assistance provided Moldova.
In terms of food assistance, Ukraine ranks 10th, receiving about one-quarter of the average assistance to the NIS. Belarus received 8.9 times the food assistance that Ukraine received, Russia 3.5 times, and Moldova 10.3 times.
Despite claims by the administration that congressional earmarks are not needed, it is clear from the State Department report that only because of the earmarks is the amount budgeted for Ukraine slowly reaching the NIS average.
From the data provided by the State Department, it appears that Congress needs to not only continue earmarking funds for Ukraine but also to continue pressuring the administration to spend the funds it provides for Ukraine.
Major NIS assistance programs1 expenditures as of September 30, 1996
| Countries | Amount2 |
% of total |
Per capita3 |
Rank |
% of assistance to Ukraine |
| NIS-Wide4 | 220.59 |
3.25 |
0.76 |
||
| Russia | 3232.08 |
47.57 |
21.56 |
8 |
129.1 |
| Armenia | 563.61 |
8.3 |
158.32 |
1 |
948 |
| Azerbaijan | 86.74 |
1.28 |
11.13 |
11 |
66.6 |
| Georgia | 421.86 |
6.21 |
73.62 |
2 |
440.8 |
| Kazakstan | 282.24 |
4.15 |
16.24 |
10 |
97.2 |
| Kyrgyzstan | 266.59 |
3.92 |
55.89 |
3 |
334.7 |
| Tajikistan | 143.72 |
2.15 |
23.33 |
7 |
139.7 |
| Turkmenistan | 131.29 |
1.93 |
32.19 |
5 |
192.8 |
| Uzbekistan | 71.47 |
1.05 |
3.1 |
12 |
18.6 |
| Belarus | 309.38 |
4.55 |
29.63 |
6 |
177.4 |
| Moldova | 199.33 |
2.93 |
44.39 |
4 |
265.8 |
| Ukraine | 866.05 |
12.75 |
16.7 |
9 |
100 |
| NIS Total/Average | 6794.95 |
100 |
23.49 |
|
140.7 |
1. Includes Nunn-Lugar funds.
2. In millions of U.S. dollars.
3. In U.S. dollars.
4. Assistance not allocated to any specific
country but to the NIS in general.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, April 6, 1997, No. 14, Vol. LXV
| Home Page |