PERSPECTIVES

by Andrew Fedynsky

What's the policy toward Ukraine?

The 20th century was rough on Ukrainians in a way that's impossible to fathom: during both world wars, Ukraine served as a battlefield for years on end. Afterwards there were revolutionary struggles of appalling cruelty. Factor in the man-made Famine of 1932-1933, the Great Terror, Chornobyl, totalitarianism, mass emigration, etc.

Weighed against all that, you might say that Ukraine in 2003 has never been in better shape:

Despite all this, there's no denying that Ukraine has serious problems - not the least of which is growing isolation, illustrated dramatically at the NATO summit in November 2002 when President George W. Bush made a point of snubbing President Leonid Kuchma and encouraged other leaders to do the same. Most did. Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski and Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, reportedly, were exceptions.

Critics contend that Mr. Kuchma himself brought this isolation on Ukraine. Citing credible accusations of corruption, abuse of office, election tampering, the illegal sale of military equipment to Iraq, even complicity in murder, Ukraine's leader to them conveys more the image of gangster than president.

Without excusing any shortcomings, others see a double standard, pointing to Russia's links to the "Axis of Evil" (Iran, Iraq and Korea.) Russia is building six nuclear reactors in Iran, a project the Bush administration fears will lead to an Iranian nuclear bomb. Ironically, this is the same project that Ukraine abandoned at the request of the Bill Clinton administration because of those very same fears. Heedless of America's concerns, Russia stepped in and picked up the contract.

Russia also maintains a close relationship with Iraq, negotiating huge deals and protecting Saddam Hussein's access to radio jammers and intercepts, global positioning equipment, high speed computers, antidotes for nerve agents and other items with dual civilian-military applications.

Russia is also cozy with the world's most recent nuclear threat, North Korea, whose dictator, Kim Jong II, visited Moscow twice in the past two years.

Then there's the frightful campaign against the Chechens, which spares neither civilians nor combatants. President Vladimir Putin responded to human rights protests by expelling monitors and journalists. He's also getting rid of Roman Catholic priests, labor organizers, Peace Corps volunteers and others who complicate things by speaking the truth and acting freely.

Despite all this, President Bush extolled Mr. Putin for having a "good soul," hosted him at his ranch and, after snubbing Mr. Kuchma in Prague, flew to St. Petersburg to assuage any concerns the Russian president might have about NATO expansion.

By any fair measure, Ukraine does suffer from a double standard. Why? A good part of it, I think, involves the tremendous stature of Russian culture. Consider the composers: Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich; novelists: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn. Think of the Kirov Ballet, the Hermitage in St. Petersburg or Russian architecture. Indeed, Ivan the Terrible was so pleased with the work of one architect that he ordered him blinded so he couldn't design anything as beautiful ever again. Centuries later, in 1944, when cinematographer Sergei Eisenstein filmed Ivan the Terrible, people understood: Joseph Stalin.

And that's the underside of Russian culture, something many people in the West discount. They adore the Bolshoi Ballet, while accepting the ghastliness of figures like Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and Andropov. Even those who are appalled by Putin's Chechen policies, respect Russia's nuclear arsenal and veto power in the U.N. Security Council.

Ukraine, whose culture is barely known in the West, does not get the benefit of the doubt that Russia does. Ever since the 1930s, when Stalin massacred the artists and audiences that were creating a Ukrainian renaissance, the country has been in the shadows - a bit of a joke, a bit of an embarrassment - holding a seat in the United Nations, but voting exactly as the Kremlin ordered. With the exception of Ukrainians themselves, the world greeted independence as a huge surprise. Since then, Ukraine has made visible progress, but resistance from those who are vested in the past is keeping the country's democracy from really taking off. And it's leading to isolation.

Those pointing at Russia and arguing that Ukraine is subject to a double standard are right, of course, but lowering our expectations to the level that many accept for Russia is not the answer. Russia's in another league. Besides, Ukrainian independence is based on rejection of the Russian model. That's a goal the whole world can support. Certainly friends like Poland and Lithuania - countries that Russia once dominated - want Ukraine to succeed.

Today, many forces in Ukraine are working toward positive change. Most have some kind of link to America and, of course, there are several treaties that bind our two countries together, especially the one where Ukraine agreed to dismantle the third largest nuclear arsenal in existence - no small gesture. The tools are there to continue building Ukraine's democracy, but American support remains critical.

During the Clinton administration, Ukrainian American leaders - both Republicans and Democrats - met regularly with the national security team, including the president and vice-president themselves, to consult about America's policy toward Ukraine. We had lots of suggestions. Some were accepted; others were not. None of that is happening now. Not only is the Ukrainian American community not engaged in U.S.-Ukrainian policy, we don't even know what the policy is. And that's troubling.

So, when's the next meeting?

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, February 2, 2003, No. 5, Vol. LXXI

| Home Page |