NEWS AND VIEWS: Congress still maintains interest in Ukraine (06/22/97)

NEWS AND VIEWS

Congress still maintains interest in Ukraine

by Orest Deychakiwsky

Ukraine continues to appear on the radar screen of the United States Congress - not merely because of negative developments in that country, however. The perception that Congress is interested only in the issue of corruption and the treatment of U.S. investors in Ukraine is not entirely accurate, although such a concern does exist and is appropriate and legitimate since Ukraine is one of the largest recipients of U.S. assistance and Congress has a responsibility towards U.S. taxpayers to act in their interest.

Recently, there have been efforts to cut back the levels of assistance to Ukraine, or to make this assistance conditional. Many of these moves stem from the not completely inaccurate perception that corruption in Ukraine has increased over the last year and that some U.S. investors in Ukraine have legitimate grievances. Another problem that acts as a brake on stronger support for Ukraine in Congress is the perception of lack of progress with respect to economic reform. Nonetheless, Congress wants to support a stable, independent Ukraine.

On the positive side, Ukraine continues to receive relatively high marks for its foreign policy. Ukraine's impressive record over the past month in achieving historically significant agreements with NATO, Russia, Romania and Poland are rightly recognized in Congress as a testament to Ukraine's significant contributions to the stability and security of Europe.

Below are just a few examples of recent manifestations of strong congressional interest in Ukraine's well-being. On June 11, Pennsylvania Congressman John Fox's (R-Pa.) amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act concerning assistance to Ukraine passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin. The amendment supports foreign assistance funding levels for political and economic reform for Ukraine for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 and a level equal to that allocated to Ukraine for FY 1997. It strongly supports certain Ukrainian foreign policy and internal, democratic developments. At the same time, the amendment calls for the government of Ukraine to ensure restitution or compensation to U.S. investors who have been the victims of criminal, corrupt activities by Ukrainian officials.

Another example is a "Dear Colleague" letter that supports continued assistance to Ukraine. Initiated by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and addressed to Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Ala.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the letter is currently being circulated in the House for signatures.

Other examples include letters on policy issues by members of the Helsinki Commission: a June letter from Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) to President Bill Clinton that urged that Chornobyl be on the G-7 summit agenda in Denver, and letters from Commission Chairman Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) and Co-Chairman Smith to Vice-President Al Gore and President Clinton that urged strong support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and on the Sevastopol issue.

Much work remains to continue educating Congress about Ukraine. As Congress deliberates funds for Ukraine for the next fiscal year, debates will intensify over the coming weeks, and Ukraine's funding levels are by no means assured. Members of Congress and their staffs have literally hundreds of issues before them, and most cannot devote the kind of time to Ukraine that the Ukrainian American community might desire; hence, the importance of raising these issues with legislators. Moreover, in general, Congress is less focused on foreign policy than during the Cold War. Therefore, it is important to convey and to emphasize Ukraine's successes, while not ignoring or being defensive about Ukraine's negatives. One must always bear in mind that Ukraine is in the midst of a historic transformation and is overcoming a devastating legacy, and that the process of transformation will be a lengthy one.

It is easy to become frustrated with Ukraine, and I suspect that we have all noticed a certain disillusionment with many aspects of the Ukrainian reality - even within the Ukrainian American community, traditionally one of Ukraine's most stalwart base of support.

Though frustration exists with respect to the disposition of some of the assistance for Ukraine and its effectiveness, cutting assistance is not the answer. Rather, funding programs that will help develop a market economy and a political democracy are perhaps the best antidote to corruption, which nonetheless will not disappear overnight.

There are assistance success stories, and some of this success may not always be readily apparent. A few weeks ago, Ukraine's internal affairs minister told this writer that while it is very difficult, in some respects, to measure the effectiveness of U.S. assistance to his ministry, he is absolutely convinced of its merits and sees a noticeable shift in the ministry employees' mentality. As frustrating as the process may seem, patience, encouragement and constructive criticism in dealing with Ukraine are warranted. For all of its problems, Ukraine has come a long way in the last few years in many respects.

And one salient point should never be forgotten: it is in the U.S. national interest to support a stable, independent, democratic Ukraine as an insurance policy against the re-creation of a Russian empire.

Orest Deychakiwsky is a staff advisor to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission). The views expressed here are his own.

| Home Page |