November 6, 2015

Amplifications re: Wolowyna analysis

More

Dear Editor:

Allow me to offer a few amplifications and observations on Oleh Wolowyna’s interesting and informative article “The situation in Ukraine and challenges for the Ukrainian community in the U.S.” (October 18) on the socio-economic status of Ukrainian Americans, which, as he details, compares quite favorably to the total U.S. population.

His enumeration of high-level Ukrainian American officials omits at least two important, Senate-confirmed Executive Branch positions: Paula Dobriansky, who held one of the most senior positions in the State Department as undersecretary of state for the duration of the George W. Bush administration and Melanne Verveer, who served as U.S. ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure.

Furthermore, there actually have been congressmen who have identified themselves as Ukrainian American – two who come to mind are former Rep. Maurice Hinchey and former House Democratic Whip David Bonior. In addition, there are senators and representatives who, while not ethnically Ukrainian, trace their roots to Ukraine and have been strongly supportive of Ukraine. Moreover, in my 34 years at the U.S. governmental Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), I have witnessed strong commitment for the aspirations of the Ukrainian people from many senators and congressmen with no ethnic affiliation to Ukraine, or, for that matter, very few Ukrainian American constituents, reinforcing the idea that ethnic Ukrainian identity is not necessarily the most important determinant of support for Ukraine.

I agree with Dr. Wolowyna that, when it comes to influencing U.S. policy on Ukraine in the political arena, it would be beneficial to have more high-level government officials and members of Congress. As importantly, it would be better to have more foreign policy professionals of Ukrainian descent working for the government, whether at the State Department, on Capitol Hill or elsewhere. After all, it is often these mid or even low-level professionals who do most of the actual work of advocating, implementing and even creating policy initiatives – drafting legislation, statements, memos, talking points, organizing hearings and meetings, etc. to further U.S. policy goals, including those that pertain to Ukraine. Given Ukrainian American education levels plus the Ukrainian diaspora’s high degree of politicization, it has somewhat surprised me that there have not been more Ukrainian Americans professionally involved in foreign policy. Thankfully, there are many non-Ukrainian American policy professionals in the government, including on the Hill, with a track record of support for Ukraine.

Finally, the correlation between socio-economic factors of a given ethnic group and influencing policy is not always straightforward. Dr. Wolowyna’s example of the administration’s refusal to act on “meaningful support for Ukraine’s defense efforts” despite the community’s achievement of obtaining congressional support for it has its limitations (putting aside that, while the administration has not acted on lethal weapons, it is increasingly providing non-lethal defense and other assistance.) After all, other ethnic groups with much greater numbers of high-level officials or members of Congress don’t always get what they want in the policy realm, further illustrating that there are many variables that go into the policy-making process.

Washington

Comments are closed.