EDITORIAL: A change in U.S. policy? (01/20/02)

EDITORIAL

A change in U.S. policy?

When U.S. President George W. Bush made his first trek to Europe last summer, he delivered what is still considered by some his most incisive foreign policy speech, calling for an "open" Europe, to include Ukraine.

"The Europe we are building must include Ukraine," said Mr. Bush during a speech in Poland at Warsaw University on June 15. The words gave every indication that Ukraine would continue to receive a good deal of American attention, and that a U.S. policy of supporting Ukrainian national interests against attempts at de-stabilization by its former colonial master, Moscow, would be retained.

Then came September 11, which was followed by a U.S. initiative to bring Russia into the coalition leading the fight against global terrorism. As relations between the two former arch-enemies warmed considerably, one of the issues that had distanced them in the recent past, namely the U.S. missile defense shield, also seemed to dissolve. Recently the situation between them has become so cozy that Washington may have agreed to allow Moscow to resume its influence over Ukraine.

For most of the 1990s, the U.S. retained a keen interest in Ukraine, going so far as to declare a "strategic partnership" with the country. The soundings from Washington unwaveringly let it be known that Moscow had to control its desire to see Ukraine returned to its geopolitical fold. But with Ukraine nuclear-free and Chornobyl shut down, two priorities of U.S. foreign policy in attempting to maintain world stability had been accomplished. Now there are indications that Washington no longer has the same strong desire to keep Moscow and Kyiv at arm's length, a scenario that was presented in The New York Times on January 13. The news story reported that the United States is not concerned about closer relations between Kyiv and Moscow and is even encouraging them.

The Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta went a serious step further in an article published back on December 29 when it stated that, not only was the U.S. supporting a Moscow-Kyiv axis, but that it had gone so far as to develop a new policy for its relations with Russia and Ukraine, which the newspaper labeled the "Rice Doctrine" (after U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who is said to have authored the policy). According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the Rice Doctrine provides that "Russia has a right to special interests outside its borders and, consequently, to the special handling of Ukraine." The author of the piece, a Taras Galyuk, writes: "Naturally it does not require the United Staes to abandon Ukraine completely or give up all levers of influence there. It seems, however, that the ostentatious interest in the Ukrainian issue once displayed by America is history now."

The veracity and accuracy of the article can easily be questioned because it is fraught with anti-Ukrainian sentiments, but the fact remains that to date - two weeks since it was published - no U.S. government official has expressly rejected that there is a new Russia-U.S. policy on Ukraine.

While never offering that the U.S. had in any way condoned the return of Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual was quoted in The New York Times article as saying that he supports the deepening of relations between the two Slavic states. "We see no contradiction between Ukraine's 'European choice' and stable, normal relations with Russia," said Mr. Pascual. "Ukraine can - and should - pursue both. A stable, confident and reforming Ukraine would be the kind of neighbor that could encourage a reform-minded Russia on its own transition path. The obverse is likewise true."

The U.S. Embassy told The Weekly that a key portion of the quote, omitted in the Times story, underscored the ambassador's concern that Ukraine astutely take care to make sure that new relations do not end with Moscow again asserting domination over the country. "A key for Ukraine today is to keep its relations with Russia transparent so that all can see that Ukraine's actions indeed reinforce Ukraine's sovereignty and national interests," Mr. Pascual had added, according to an embassy spokesperson.

While the ambassador's sensitivity to Ukraine's tragic, colonial past is heartening, it remains disconcerting that the U.S. indeed seems to have accepted, if not encouraged, a new geopolitical alignment in the region. The U.S. failure to offer an unequivocal statement that a "Rice Doctrine" does not exist leaves a lingering concern that the U.S. and Russia have adopted a new common policy on Ukraine.

The lack of a clear message on the part of the U.S. only increases the concern that Washington and Moscow have returned to playing a geopolitical chess game. We cannot accept that the fate of a country of 49 million could again be determined by those two governments as happened after World War II. We must now diligently watch how relations involving Washington, Kyiv and Moscow continue to unfold, and we must understand that what is currently in the best interest of the U.S. is not necessarily advantageous for Kyiv as well.

| Home Page |