INTERVIEW: U.S. ambassador speaks on developments regarding Ukraine

Ambassador Steven Pifer arrived in Kyiv on January 8, 1998, as the third United States ambassador to Ukraine. Prior to his appointment here, Mr. Pifer served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton and senior director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council.

In an interview with The Weekly, Ambassador Pifer discussed a wide array of issues, including U.S.-Ukraine relations, the upcoming Ukrainian presidential elections, the Ukrainian American diaspora and the new visa application procedures at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.

The following edited interview was conducted by Roman Woronowycz at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv on July 21. (Part I appeared in last week's issue.)

CONCLUSION

Q: In a July 14 editorial The Washington Post criticized President Leonid Kuchma's campaign tactics. It wrote "U.S. officials should make it clear that no individual candidate matters more to them than seeing Ukraine stay on its democratic path." Have you or any U.S. official discussed such matters with Mr. Kuchma or his associates?

A: First of all, to put this into context, let me say that Ukraine has a good track record in the four national elections. While in those elections, in each case, you could point to problems, the general consensus of the observers was that the results reflected the mandate that the voters exercised. We want to see Ukraine continue that tradition in this election.

We have raised with the Ukrainian government some issues of concern. We have questioned things like access to the media and some questions and uncertainties about some rules, but then again, that's part of our dialogue.

It's part of our hope to encourage Ukraine to continue on what's been a pretty positive track record of elections over the last seven years.

Q: What is the response that you receive from the presidential administration?

A: They've heard us out. We'll have to watch and see.

Q: How would U.S. policy change should a leftist, a Communist, Socialist or Peasant Party representative, get elected?

A: I think, first of all, American interest in Ukraine and seeing Ukraine succeed - and when I say succeed I mean Ukraine maintaining its independence, building a strong democracy, building a strong market economy that interest remains regardless of who is president. I think there is going to be a readiness on the part of the United States government if President Kuchma is re-elected to continue our engagement with him, or also to engage with anybody else who might be elected. Really, the ability of our policies to succeed and our ability to engage will be determined by the response we get here.

Our ability to help Ukraine work towards building a market economy obviously is going to turn to a certain degree on how eager the government in fact is to go the way. But, from our part, our intention is to be engaged and see what kind of reaction we get.

Q: At the end of June a large conference of leading Ukrainian American organizations was held in Washington. One of the themes was how the Ukrainian community in the U.S can help Ukraine and how it can influence U.S. policy. What would you counsel?

A: I think there is already a pretty good dialogue between the Ukrainian American community and people like Ambassador Steven Sestanovich of the National Security Council and the Vice-President's Office. Those are pretty good contacts to maintain, first of all, so that the Ukrainian American community can communicate to the U.S. government what its concerns and priorities are.

But, second, it also gives the government a chance to explain what we are trying to do, so that there is a lot of transparency and a lot of understanding there.

On working with Ukraine, there is one thing I would like the diaspora to think about. There is lot of talent and experience and knowledge that can help Ukraine.

One thing that we are beginning to think about in the executive branch is: Are there ways to expand exchanges to get more Ukrainians into organized programs in the United States where they can spend time learning how the United States tackles various political and economic problems, and then come back and apply some of those ideas here in Ukraine as Ukraine goes through its own difficult transition process?

A government can do a lot of that, but I also think that the private sector can do some of that, and that may be a role for the Ukrainian diaspora: to work and see if there are ways to expand good programs or exchanges that would equip people here with the economic skills, or the political skills that Ukraine is going to need as it becomes more closely integrated into Europe and the global economy.

Q: Turning to the real or perceived problem of obtaining visas for Ukrainians to visit the United States. What exactly are the requirements or the characteristics that a visa officer reviewing an applicant looks for? Some people say the criteria seem ambiguous or shifting.

A: Let me start from the general and make the point that what's applied in Ukraine is the same visa law that is applied worldwide. It is a law that I quite frankly regard as un-American, if I can say so on the record.

It's un-American in the sense that the basis of our legal system is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The visa law, in effect, requires the consular officers to have to assume that a visa applicant is guilty - that he is an intending immigrant, plans to work, plans to overdue his stay - until he or she proves that they have sufficient ties to their home country, that they have a real plan for their stay in the United States consistent with the visa for which they are applying, and that they have sufficient financial capabilities to go ahead and carry out that travel.

Part of the problem that we have, unfortunately, is that there has been a difficult history, and it is a difficult history that is reflected in reports we get from the Immigration and Naturalization Service about a significant number of Ukrainians who go to the United States on a tourist visa and then apply to adjust status.

We also get anecdotal evidence of Ukrainians who go on a visa having said that they only want to go for a month and stay six, or seven, or eight months. That raises questions about how strong the ties are that would bring them back to Ukraine.

Unfortunately, we don't have any statistical evidence of that because one of the aspects of American immigration service and our border patrol, one of the positive aspects, is that we don't keep track of people in the United States. When you enter the United States and then you leave, we have no way, usually, of tracking that people have left. So we don't have complete statistics, but we do have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that says a significant number of Ukrainians have overstayed or have engaged in activities inconsistent with their visas.

That has an impact here in terms of how the consular officers look at other applicants. Having said all that, I think there are some misconceptions out there. In fact, in 1998 the visa section issued 2,000 more visas than in 1997, and the refusal rate for all classes of visas fell by about 7 percent. So, in fact, the number of issuances is going up. Now, obviously, that's not going to be something that will help someone who is a friend or relative or someone who has been turned down.

I'd also make the point, having served 21 years ago as a visa officer myself in Warsaw, when Poland had a situation that in many ways was similar to the situation in Ukraine, that this is a hard job.

I remember my first day on the visa line, I looked for the magic de-coder ring that said that if they checked these six boxes then it's a yes or no. But it's not [there]. It really becomes the judgment of the officer in terms of the overall case, how the applicant presents himself, in some cases whether the applicant is being truthful. And does this meet a fairly demanding standard that is set out regarding compelling ties that will bring the person back to Ukraine.

Q: But then if the consular officer is having a bad day, he or she could subjectively reject applicants who meet all the criteria for a visa.

A: What we try to do is have in place a process, whereby particular [applications] are reviewed by a second officer. We don't always do that, but a second officer may catch something that doesn't quite look right. So that's one part.

The second part, and certainly it was my experience, I don't think that consular officers go into a visa interview wanting to say no. In many cases, in terms of work for them, a refusal actually generates more work than the issuance. There is follow-up correspondence and things like that.

The process looks a little different today than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago a refusal was always more work than an acceptance.

Q: What does it take then to be assured of a visa? What must the applicant physically show?

A: A lot of that information will be conveyed on the application. In terms of the questions about ties back to Ukraine, what the consular officers are looking for are assurances that this person will come back on time and in the United States will behave within the terms of the visa.

Q: But if a person can show that he owns an apartment in Ukraine and that he has a family that he will leave behind is that sufficient?

A: I see what you are getting at and, again, this was the sort of key that I was looking for 20 years ago. Somebody can walk in with those qualifications, and they are good qualifications, but then they look and see that this person went to the United States in 1995 and stayed eight months, all of a sudden there is a big question in the mind of the consular officer, well how important are those ties to bring this person back?

So, it's really hard to sketch out things, and that's why this is something that ultimately we have to leave up to the judgment of the officers.

I also have to add, when I go back and look at the 21 years I have had in the American foreign service, that probably was the hardest year, just in terms of jobs. It was difficult and draining because, again, you'd like to find reasons to say yes. With having to do your job within the context of the law, which they are sworn to uphold, that puts some very demanding requirements on them.

Q: Please comment on the new visa regulations that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv has just established, which went into effect on July 6.

A: We are trying to make the process here at the Embassy more humane. I think we've actually made some progress with that in the last few weeks.

We used to have a system whereby we'd take all these applicants who showed up at the embassy by 10:30 in the morning, and we, in effect, had a situation where people would have to be in line for two, three, sometimes four hours. Because the physical space in the Embassy is so limited, we had no place to bring them into a waiting room, except for the few minutes right before the interview.

What we put in place on July 6, and it seems to be working, is a couple of new changes.

One is for certain visa applicants: People who have been in the United States before mainly, they can come by and make use of a drop box system, where they can come in, pay their visa, drop off the passport. In 95 percent of those cases an interview is not required. It'll be processed, and the next day they can come get their visa. So they can dispense with the line.

What we are doing in other cases is we have put into place an appointment system, and now we are asking all other applicants for visas to, rather than just coming to the Embassy, with about two weeks notice send a letter, a fax or a telegram to the Embassy and give us a name, passport number, place and date of birth and indicate when they would like a visa interview. We will then answer that.

Now we have in place an appointment system, so all visa interviews are scheduled. The advantages to the applicant are that, while this does not change the law that has to be applied to their case as it is considered, they don't have to stand for three hours in the rain. They're told to come on Tuesday, July 20, at 2:30 and they're in the door within 5 minutes. It seems to be working.

We're trying to find a way to make the system more humane, not to force people to sit outside in the rain or the snow, or whatever. And to try to be a little more customer service oriented in that sense.

Q: Last question, how do you like living in Ukraine? Is there maybe something you see here that is glaringly missing in the States, or vice versa? What's your impression of this country?

A: First of all, I wish I had more time, it's very hectic. But I really enjoy Kyiv. It is a beautiful city, and there is a huge amount of potential here.

One of the things as I look around - and you can see the potential - this could be a place where you could put together a good tourist package. People could come here for two or three days, there is plenty to see. A lot of interesting culture.

But they don't yet have a tourist infrastructure that would support that. That's one thing.

And it turns on some other things, it turns on getting some decent Western-style hotels, but you can see the potential for Kyiv to be a place where people would really want to come.

PART I

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, August 29, 1999, No. 35, Vol. LXVII

| Home Page |