Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
Speaker Bios
Short biographies of the Roundtable II participants
(As published in the original conference program materials, October–November 2001)
Anders Aslund
Anders Aslund is a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Dr. Aslund served as an economic advisor to the Russian government from 1991 to 1994, and as an economic advisor to the Ukrainian government from 1994 to 1997. Since 1998, he has advised the government of Kyrgystan
Boris Bazylevskyi
Boris Bazylevskyi is Ukraine’s Consul-General in Chicago. Prior to his posting in the United States, Consul-General Bazylevski served as Secretariat Director of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Relations with the CIS
Andrew Bihun
Andrew Bihun serves as International Trade Specialist with the U.S. Department of Commerce. In the mid 1990s, Mr. Bihun held the post of Commercial Attache at the U.S. Embassy to Ukraine
Ivan Bilas
Ivan Bilas has been a member of the Parliament of Ukraine from 1994 to the present and is the Chairman of the Committee on Law Enforcement. He holds the rank of General in the National Guard of Ukraine. Since 1998, General Bilas has been the President of the Union of Ukrainian Officers
Ian Brzezinski
Ian Brzezinski is a Senior Professional Staff Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In this capacity, he advices the ranking Republican member of the Committee, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), on matters concerning U.S. inter- ests in Europe, Russia and Ukraine, including those pertaining to NATO, EU, and the OSCE. Mr. Brzezinski also serves as the Secretary of the U.S. Senate Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Victor Chudowsky
Victor Chudowsky is a Program Officer at Meridian International Center, where he has worked on Freedom Support Act programs for political leaders from Ukraine and other newly independent states. In the late 1990s, Dr. Chudowsky was a visiting scholar at the National Institute of Strategic Studies in Kyiv
Stacy Closson
Stacy Closson served as the Ukraine Country Manager in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from November 1998 to August 2001. She currently works at the Caucasus Desk. In January 2001, Ms. Closson was the recipi- ent of the Secretary of Defense Award for Exceptional Civilian Service
Ariel Cohen
Ariel Cohen is the Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Cohen manages a policy research program on Russia, the New Independent States and Central Europe, consulting Congressional staff members and leading American, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian and other Eurasian, Eastern and Central European decision makers
Leonard Coburn
Leonard Coburn is Director of New Indendendent States, Russia and Middle East Affairs at the United States Department of Energy. In his capacity, Mr. Coburn is a key figure with regard to U.S. energy policy vis a vis Ukraine
William H. Courtney
William H. Courtney is President of DynCorp. From 1998 to 2000, he served as a senior advisor at the Congressionally- chaired U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In 1997-98, Ambassador Courtney was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the National Security Council staff for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia. Previously, he served as Ambassador to Georgia and Kazakhstan
Nadia Diuk
Nadia Diuk currently serves as Senior Program Officer for Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States at the National Endowment for Democracy, a private nonprofit organization funded by the U.S. Congress to strengthen demo- cratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. Dr. Diuk has supervised NED programs in this com- plex region since 1987
Paula Dobriansky
Paula Dobriansky is Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. While her present post requires a focus on U.S. relations with the International Community, Under Secretary Dobriansky is an acknowledged expert on matters relating to the post- Soviet space; from 1981 to 1987, she served in various posts in the Directorate on European and Soviet Affairs at the National Security Council
Jaroslav Dutkevych
Jaroslav Dutkevych was the first Country Director of the U.S. Peace Corps in Ukraine from 1992 to 2000. He developed and directed one of the largest and most successful U.S. Peace Corps and U.S. assistance programs in Ukraine
Jonathan Elkind
Jonathan Elkind is a Senior Research Associate at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a collaboration of the University of Maryland and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. From August 1998 to February 2001, Dr. Elkind served on the staff of the NSC as Director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs. His portfolio included energy and environmental issues throughout the post-Soviet states, as well as lead responsibility for relations with the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia
Douglas Feith
Douglas Feith is Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. USDPFeith’s responsiblities include myriad issues: arms control, multilateral ‘threat reduction’ conventions of various kinds, NATO matters and, perhaps most critical, the development of new ‘security’ paradigms
Andrew Fialko
Andrew Fialko is Director of the Principal Foreign Policy Directorate in the Administration of the President of Ukraine. From 1996 to the present, Mr. Fialko has served as: Deputy Head of Ukrainian delegations to OSCE Fora, Member of the Ukrainian State Inter-agency Committee on Relations with NATO and Member of Ukraine’s Commission on Relations with CEI
Bohdan Futey
Bohdan Futey has served as a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims since 1987. Judge Futey is actively involved with Democratization and Rule of Law programs organized by the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the Department of State and the American Bar Association in Ukraine and Russia
Michael Haltzel
Michael Haltzel is senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Staff Director of the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee. He is the lead Democratic Senate staffer on NATO and Balkan policy. Dr. Haltzel came to the Senate in 1994 from the Library of Congress, where he was Chief of the European Division
Olexiy Haran
Olexiy Haran is both Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for National Security Studies at the University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (UKMA). Dr. Haran is a member of the President’s Public Advisory Board [Ukraine] and serves as a member of the advisory board of Kennan Institute [U.S.]
Bohdan Hawrylyshyn
Bohdan Hawrylyshyn is the Director of the Vidrogenia Foundation. Dr. Hawrylyshyn serves as special advisor to the Prime Minister of Ukraine Anatoliy Kinakh and the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament Ivan Plyshch
Kostyantyn Hryshchenko
Kostyantyn Hryshchenko is the Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States of America. Ambassador Hryshchenko also serves as a member of the UN Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. He served as Ambassador of Ukraine to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and as the Head of the Ukrainian Mission to NATO from 1998 to 2000
Anatoliy Hrytsenko
Anatoliy Hrytsenko is President of the Razymkov Center. The Razymkov Center is considered to be one of the most presti- gious political think tanks in Ukraine
Robert Hughes
Robert Hughes is the current Chief, Regional Plans and Issues Division for the USAF Director of Operational Plans and Joint Matters. Immediately prior to taking on the current post, Colonel Hughes served as Defense Attache at the United States Embassy in Ukraine
Natalie Jaresko
Natalie Jaresko was named to the post of President and CEO of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund in February 2001. She is responsible for managing the Fund’s strategic development, setting long-term business goals for portfolio companies and attracting capital to expand business opportunities. Prior to the appointment, Ms. Jaresko, as the Fund’s CIO, successfully built a $63 million portfolio that included 19 companies in the region
Geza Jeszenszky
Geza Jeszenszky has served as the Ambassador of Hungary to the United States of America since I998. Dr. Jeszensky was a founding member of the Hungarian Democratic Forum, (1990), which won the free elections of April 1990. From 1990 to 1994, he held the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Government of J. Antall
Marcy Kaptur
Marcy Kaptur is a member of the United States House of Representatives from Ohio. Representative Kaptur, among her many responsibilities on the Hill, is a Co-chair of the Ukrainian Congressional Caucus
Thomas Keaney
Thomas Keaney is the executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute and senior professor of strategic studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. Until 1998, Dr. Keaney was a professor of military strategy at the National War College, Washington D.C., and director of its core courses on military thought and strategy
Ihor Kharchenko
Ihor Kharchenko is Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine. From 1992 to 1997, Deputy Foreign Minister Kharchenko, head- ed the European Sector policy planning staff at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In July 1997, he was posted as Deputy Head of Ukraine’s Mission to the UN and served in that capacity until September 1998
Eberhardt Koelsch
Eberhardt Koelsch became Deputy Chief of the Mission of the German Embassy in Washington in September, 1999. Immediately prior to coming to Washington, Dr. Koelsch served at the German Foreign Ministry, overseeing Germany’s contribution to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, first as European Correspondent and later as Deputy Political Director
Anatoliy Kinakh
Anatoliy Kinakh is the current Prime Minister of Ukraine. Prime Minister Kinakh was serving as a member of Ukrainian Parliament prior to his appointment; he had been elected to the seat in May 1999. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Kinakh held the post of President of the Ukrainian League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs SERGEI KONOPLYOV Sergei Konoplyov is Executive Director of the Ukrainian National Security Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School. The program is geared to offering Ukrainian military officers an opportunity to study in the United States
Nicholas Krawciw
Nicholas Krawciw is President of The Dupuy Institute (TDI), a military history research center in McLean, Virginia. He is also a consulant on Ukraine in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense – International Security Policy. General Krawciw retired from the U.S. Army in July 1990, after 31 years in command and staff positions
Laryssa Kyj
Laryssa Kyj is the president of the United Ukrainian American Relief Committee, Inc. and the executive vice-president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America. Concurrently, she is a professor in the Accounting and Finance Department at Rowan University in New Jersey. In 1992, Dr. Kyj was a consultant to the IMF on a number of its missions to Ukraine
Alan Larson
Alan Larson is the first career Foreign Service Officer to serve as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs. As the senior economic advisor to Secretary Powell, Ambassador Larson’s responsibilities include the entire range of international economic policy
F. Stephen Larrabee
F. Stephen Larrabee is a Senior Staff member at RAND in Washington, D.C. and holds the RAND Corporate Chair in European Security. From 1978-1981, Dr. Larrabee served on the U.S. National Security Council staff in the White House as a specialist on Soviet-East European affairs and East-West political-military relations
George Laszkiewicz
George Laszkiewicz is a Vice President for International Projects and Development at Compro Inc. in its New York office. Dr. Laszkiewicz manages company projects concerning remediation technologies for Chornobyl Exclusion Zone and Dniprodzerzhinsk Radioactive Waste Repository, as well as projects pertaining to new material for the nuclear industry developed in cooperation with Ukrainian research and development institutions
Nancy Lee
Nancy Lee is the U.S. Treasury Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Eurasia, responsible for economic and finan- cial issues in U.S. relations with 28 countries, including Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Southeast Europe and other transition economies of Europe
Nelson C. Ledsky
Nelson C. Ledsky has directed democratic development programs in the post Soviet space since 1992 for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Ambassador Ledsky served as U.S. negotiator in Germany and U.S. Special Coordinator for Cyprus (1989-92), and as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (1987-89)
John Micgiel
John Micgiel is both Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Europe at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). Dr. Micgiel brings a good deal of personal knowledge to the subject of contemporary Ukrainian-Polish relations; he has witnessed, first hand, the benefits of academ- ic exchange between Polish and Ukrainian institutions of higher learning
William Miller
William Miller served as the second United States Ambassador to Ukraine. During his tenure, Ambassador Miller was eye- witness to some of the most fundamental transformations of the Ukrainian State, including the ratification of Ukraine’s Constitution
Ihor Mitiukov
Ihor Mitiukov is Finance Minister of Ukraine, having assumed the post in February 1997. From 1995 to 1997, Minister Mitiukov was the Vice Prime Minister of Financial and Banking Affairs. Prior to 1995, he served in the International Relations Department of the National Bank of Ukraine
Jennifer Moroney
Jennifer Moroney, as an Associate in DFI International’s Government Practice, is a project manager for contracts with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, NATO, European, and Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia offices. Dr. Moroney was a NATO Research Fellow from 1999-2001, and has published numerous articles on Ukraine, European Security, and NATO/EU enlargement and regional security cooperation in Europe/Eurasia
Cameron Munter
Cameron Munter become Director for Central Europe at the National Security Council in December 1999. Director Munter’s portfolio covers Ukraine in the east to Germany in the west, Bulgaria in the south the Nordic and Baltic states in the north, a total of twenty one countries
Piotr Naimski
Piotr Naimski served as Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of Poland in the Government of J. Buzek. At present, Dr. Naimski is Director of the International Affairs Department at WSB/ National-Louis University in Nowy Sacz, Poland
George Nesterczuk
George Nesterczuk is President of Nesterczuk and Associates, a government relations and management consulting firm located in Vienna, VA. Until recently he was Vice President of Global USA, Inc. Prior to joining Global, Mr. Nesterczuk spent five years as Staff Director of the Civil Service Subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives
Steven Nix
Steven Nix is Regional Program Director for Eurasia at the International Republican Institute. From 1995 to 1997, Mr. Nix served as Outside Legal Counsel for the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Judicial Reform. Upon his return to the U.S., he accepted a position as Senior Democracy Specialist at USAID, where he assisted in the design and imple- mentation of democracy programs in Eastern Europe and the New Independent States
Olga Oliker
Olga Oliker is a Research Associate at RAND Corporation’s Center for Russia and Eurasia. Her area of interest has been and remains European security, Russia and Ukraine. Her recent article: Ukraine and the Caspian – An Opportunity for the US is a must read for anyone interested in U.S.-Ukrainian energy relations
Ihor Ostash
Ihor Ostash has been a member of the Parliament of Ukraine from 1994 to the present and is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is also the Chairman of the Ukraine-Australia Interparliamentary Group and is a member of the Ukrainian Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Hafiz Pashayev
Hafiz Pashayev is the first Ambassador of Azeribijian to the United States of America. He arrived in Washington, D.C. in February 1993 and presented his credentials to President Clinton on April 14, 2001. Since assuming his post, Ambassador Pashayev has concentrated on the imperative necessity to develop, broaden, and enhance bilateral U.S.-Azeri relations
Carlos Pascual
Carlos Pascual arrived in Kyiv on October 19, 2000 as the fourth United States Ambassador to Ukraine. From July 1998 through January 2000, Ambassador Pascual served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia on the NSC. He guided U.S. policy to encourage Ukraine’s commitment to democratic and market reform and its integration with Europe
William G. Perett
William G. Perett is Director of the Office of Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Belarusian Affairs at the Department of State. Dr. Perett joined the Foreign Service in 1977 and has served in Iran, India, Portugal, Switzerland and Moldova. He has held a variety of positions in the Department of State, predominantly in European affairs
Steven Pifer
Steven Pifer, a career senior Foreign Service Officer (class of Minister-Counselor), is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. From January 1998 to October 2000, DAS Pifer served as the third United States Ambassador to Ukraine
Herman Pirchner
Herman Pirchner is founding President of the American Foreign Policy Council. In recent years, in addition to the steady flow of books and articles, the Council has worked with over 100 members of Congress and numerous Executive Branch officials on foreign travel, exchanges and foreign policy briefings. Mr. Pirchner previously served as Director of Legislation for Senator Roger Jepsen (R-Iowa)
Serhiy Rakhmanin
Serhiy Rakhmanin is senior correspondent for Dzerkalo Tyzhnya (Mirror Weekly), one of Ukraine’s most highly respected broadsheets . He is considered by his peers to be one of the ten most influential journalists in Ukraine
Mykhailo Ratushyi
Mykhailo Ratushyi has been a member of the Parliament of Ukraine from 1994 to the present. He is member of the Parliament’s Law Enforcement Committee. He also is the Vice-Chairman of the Ukrainski Narodny Rukh (UNR). Mr. Ratushny served as Vice-President of the Independent Labor Movement in Ukraine from 1990 to 1994
Robert Schaffer
Robert Schaffer is a member of the United States House of Representatives from Colorado. Representative Schaffer, among his many responsibilities on the Hill, is a co-Chair of the Ukrainian Congressional Caucus
Edilberto Segura
Edilberto Segura has served as Chief Economist of SigmaBleyzer since 1999. Prior to joining SigmaBleyzer, Dr. Segura was the Head of the World Bank Mission in Ukraine and had a distinguished 27-year career with the World Bank in sever- al senior positions around the world. He is currently a visiting professor at Oxford, where he is teaching a course on Emerging Capital Markets
Muhammed Shadman-Valavi
Muhammed Shadman-Valavi is Division Chief/ Assistant Director of the European II Department of the International Monetary Fund. In that capacity, Dr. Shadman-Valavi has headed IMF missions to Armenia, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Ukraine, and supervised mission work on Belarus, Lithuania and the Kyrgyz Republic
Louise Shelley
Louise Shelley is a Professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society and the School of International Service at AmericanUniversity. Dr. Shelley is founder and director of the Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), a center devoted to teaching, research and training on these issues. She is a leading U.S. expert on organized crime and cor- ruption in the former Soviet Union, as well as an expert on transnational OC and corruption
Olexander Skipalsky
Olexander Skipalsky is Deputy Minister of Emergency Affairs. From 1991 to 1992, General Skipalsky was the Head of the Military Intelligence Directorate in the Security Services of Ukraine (SBU). In 1992, he was appointed to the post of Head of the Intelligence Directorate in Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense and served his appointment until 1997. He was assigned to his current position in 1998
Tamara Solanyk
Tamara Solanyk was appointed to the post of Alternative Executive Director at the World Bank in June 1999. The coun- tries within the scope of her responsibilities include: Armenia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Macedonia, Moldova, The Netherlands, Romania and Ukraine. Prior to her appointment at the World Bank, Ms. Solanyk was the Deputy Head of the National Agency of Ukraine for Development and European Integration
Volodymyr Stelmakh
Volodymyr Stelmakh is the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine. Concurrently with his present appointment, Governor Stelmakh serves on several Presidential Coordinating Committees and is a member of a Consultative Council that deals with matters of foreign investments into Ukraine
Angela Stent
Angela Stent is Director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and Professor of Government at Georgetown University. During the academic year 2000-2001, Dr. Stent took an academic leave of absense to serve on the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. State Department Olexander Sushko Olexander Sushko is the Director of the Center for Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine. Dr. Sushko’s CPCF- PU Internet Newsletter, funded in part by the USAID Freedom Support Program, provides timely analysis of key political, economic, security and diplomatic issues facing the Ukrainian political and social leadership
Borys Tarasyuk
Borys Tarasyuk served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine from December 1999 til October 2000. From1995 to 1998, Minister Tarasyuk was Ambassador of Ukraine to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In 1997, he was appointed as the first Head of the Ukrainian Mission to NATO. At present, Minister Tarasyuk is Director of the Institute for EuroAtlantic Cooperation
William B. Taylor JR.
William B. Taylor Jr. is the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to the New Independent States in the Department of State. Before coming to work for the Coordinator’s Office in July 1992, Ambassador Taylor spent five years in Brussels as the Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to
Nato
John Tedstrom
John Tedstrom is Vice President for Policy at The Institute for East-West Studies in New York City. From March 1999 through June 2000, Dr. Tedstrom served as Director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council
Olexandr Todiychuk
Olexandr Todiychuk is Chairman Of TRANS NAFTA. In his capacity, it would not be an exaggeration to state that Mr. Todiychuk holds ultimate responsibility for the energy infrastructure of Ukraine
J. Michael Waller
J. Michael Waller is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and editor-in-chief of GlobalSecurityNews.com, an electronic news and information service on international defense and security issues. Dr. Waller is a senior writer at Insight magazine and is author of four books, including Secret Empire: The KGB In Russia Today
Myron Wasylyk
Myron Wasylyk is Vice President and Managing Director of the PBN Company. Prior to joining PBN in 1996, Mr. Wasylyk was a full-time advisor to the Chairman of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. From 1993-1994, he served as Executive Secretary of the Council of Advisors to the Parliament of Ukraine
Boguslaw Winid
Boguslaw Winid is currently the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Polish Embassy in Washington. From 1992 to 1997, Dr. Winid served initially as First Secretary and later as Counselor for Congressional Relations at the Embassy. Immediately prior to the present posting, he served as Director of the North American Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [Poland]
Bohdan Yaremenko
Bohdan Yaremenko is U.S. Desk Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Prior to his present posting, Mr. Yaremenko spent several years in the United States as Political Attache at the Ukrainian Consulate in New York
Ivan Zayets
Ivan Zayets was Ukraine’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources from January 2000 til May 2001. Prior to his ministerial appointment, Mr. Zayets served as member of Ukrainian Parliament for several years. He is a leading figure in the Narodny Rukh Ukrainy (NRU), having been one of its founding
Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
October 30 – November 1, 2001
Washington, DC
Program
Tuesday October 30, 2001
Venue: Embassy of Ukraine
7:30 PM – 9:30 PM — Pre-Conference Receptions
Sponsor
Wednesday – October 31, 2001
Venue: Capitol Building/Senate Caucus Room 5
8:20 AM – 8:50 AM — Welcome Coffee and Registration
8:50 AM – 9:00 AM — Opening Remarks
Speaker
- B. Potapenko — (Steering Committee/Executive Coordinator)
9:00 AM – 9:30 AM — Roundtable Overview: U.S./Ukraine Relations and the International Community
Sponsor
- The Heritage Foundation at the First Security Federal Savings Bank, Chicago, IL
Chair
- S. Larrabee (RAND/European Security Chair)
Keynote remarks
- P. Dobriansky (Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs)
9:30 AM – 12:20 PM — [I] U.S./Ukraine Strategic Relations: Pondering the General – Three Panels
Sponsor
- Western NIS Enterprise Fund
(1) Strong U.S./Ukraine Ties and Global Security
Moderator
- T. Keaney (Johns Hopkins/SAIS)
Panelists
- I. Kharchenko (Deputy Foreign Minister)[Ukraine]
- D. Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
Lead Discussant
- W. Courtney (DynCor/President)
Suggested Topics: American View Point · Ukrainian Viewpoint · Global Perspective
(2) Strong U.S./Ukraine Ties and Regional Stability
Moderator
- N. Ledsky (NDI/Regional Director)
Panelists
- A. Fialko (Head of External Policy/Presidential Adm.)[Ukraine]
- C. Munter (NSC/Director-European and Eurasian Affairs)
Lead Discussant
- J. Tedstrom (Institute of East-West Studies/Vice President)
Suggested Topics: American View Point · Ukrainian Viewpoint · Regional Perspective
(3) Strong U.S./Ukraine Ties and Bilateral Benefits
Moderator
- S. Nix (IRI/Regional Director)
Panelists
- W. Taylor (Coordinator of US Assistance to Europe & Eurasia)
- K. Hryshchenko (Ukrainian Ambassador to the US)
Lead Discussant
- A. Cohen (Heritage Foundation/Research Fellow)
Suggested Topics: American View Point · Ukrainian Viewpoint · Regional Perspective
12:20 AM – 1:00 PM — Roundtable Overview: The Future of U.S./Ukraine Strategic Relations
Sponsor
Chair
- K. Hryshchenko (Ukrainian Ambassador to the US)
Keynote remarks
- A. Kinakh (Prime Minister of Ukraine)
1:00 PM – 2:20 PM — Working Lunch: Poland and the U.S./Ukraine Nexus
Sponsor
- Selfreliance Federal Credit Union of New York, N.Y.
Chair
- B. Bazylevskyi (Consul General of Ukraine/Chicago)
Keynote remarks
- P. Naimski (Former Security Advisor to the Prime Minister) [Poland]
2:20 PM – 5:20 PM — [II] Exploring the Particular: The Economic Dimension – Three Panels
Sponsor
- Kiev Atlantic Ukraine/Atlantic Farms
(1) Contemplating Expanded Economic Ties Between the U.S. and Ukraine
Moderator
- A. Aslund (Senior Associate/Carnegie Endowment)
Panelists
- I. Mitiukov (Minister of Finance) [Ukraine]
- A. Larson (Undersecretary of State for Econ. Bus. and Agric. Affairs)
- E. Segura (Sigma Bleyzer/Chief Economist)
Lead Discussants
- W. Miller (Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine)
- N. Jaresko (Western NIS Enterprise Fund/President & CEO)
Suggested Topics: NPTR · Quotas · Investment
(2) Envisioning a Role for the U.S. in Ukraine’s Relations with Multilateral Financial Institutions
Moderator
- L. Kyj (UCCA/Executive Vice President)
Panelists
- V. Stelmakh (Head of the National Bank) [Ukraine]
- M. Shadman-Valavi (IMF/Assistant Director – European II Dept.)
- N. Lee (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury/Eurasia)
Lead Discussant
- T. Solanyk (Alternative Executive Director/World Bank)
Suggested Topics: WTO · IMF/WB · EBRD
(3) Ukraine’s Quest for Energy Independence: Can the U.S. Help?
Moderator
- G. Laszkiewicz (ComPro/Vice President)
Panelists
- O. Todiychuk (Chairman/TRANS NAFTA) [Ukraine]
- I. Colbert (Director of NIS, Russian and Middle East Affairs/Dept. of Energy) (Texaco/Director of Government Relations)
- J. Elkind (University of Maryland/Joint Global Change Institute)
Lead Discussants
- A. Bihun (Intl. Trade Specialist/Commerce Dept.)
- O. Oliker (RAND/CRE)
Suggested Topics: Infrastructure efficiency · Market reliability · Odessa/Gdansk pipeline project
5:20 PM – 6:00 PM — U.S.-Ukrainian Relations on the Legislative Front: An Overview
Sponsors
- Selfreliance Federal Credit Union, Clifton, N.J.
- The PBN Corporation
Moderator
- M. Wasylyk(VP/The PBN Corporation)
Remarks
- Rep. M. Kaptur
- Rep. B. Schaffer
- MPM. Ratushny [Ukraine]
Thursday – November 1, 2001
Venue: Senate Hart Office Building/Room 902
8:15 AM – 9:00 AM — Welcome Coffee and Registration
9:00 AM – NOON — [III] Exploring the Particular: The Security Dimension – Three Panels
Sponsor
(1) Contemplating Expanded Security Ties Between the U.S. and Ukraine
Moderator
- G. Nesterczuk (Global US/Vice President)
Panelists
- O. Skipalsky (Former Head/Military Intelligence)[Ukraine]
- N. Krawciw (President/Dupuy Institute)
- S. Closson (Policy Analyst/OSD/RUE Department of Defense)
Lead Discussant
- W. Grycenko (Razumkov Center/Director) [Ukraine]
Suggested Topics: Direct Relations · PfP/NATO Ops · OSCE/UN Ops
(2) Envisioning a Role for the U.S. in Ukraine’s Struggle against Organized Crime
Moderator
- B. Futey (Justice/Federal Claims Court)
Panelists
- I. Bilas (Chair/Rada Comm. on Law Enforcement)[Ukraine]
- L. Shelley (Ctr. on Transnat. Crime and Corruption/American U.)
- M. Waller (AFPC/Vice President)
Lead Discussant
- S. Rahmanin (Dzerkalo Tyzhnya) [Ukraine]
Suggested Topics: Indigenous OC· Bilateral OC· Transnational OC
(3) Enhancing Ukraine’s National Security Through ‘Democracy Building’: Can the U.S. Help?
Moderator
- J. Dutkewych (Fmr. Country Director for Ukraine/US Peace Corps)
Panelists
- I. Zayets (Former Minister of Ecology and Natural Res.) [Ukraine]
- S. Nix (USAID/Program Officer
- N. Diuk (NED/Senior Program Officer/Europe and Eurasia)
Lead Discussant
- O. Haran (Kyiv-Mohylian University) [Ukraine]
Suggested Topics: NGO Development · Mass Media Development · Economic Transparency
NOON – 12:40 PM — Roundtable Overview: Ukraine’s Transformation on the European Model/How the US can assist the process
Sponsor
- Ukrainian Cultural Center, Warren, MI
Chair
- M. von Hagen (Columbia University/Harriman Institute)
Keynote remarks
- B. Hawrylyshyn (Vidrodgenia Foundation)
12:40 – 2:00 PM — Working Lunch: Russia and the U.S./Ukraine Nexus
Sponsor
- Ukraine International Airlines
Chair
- S. Konopylov (Harvard University/UNSP)
Keynote remarks
- S. Pifer (Deputy Asst Secretary of State/Europe and Eurasia)
2:00 PM – 5:00 PM — [IV] Exploring the Particular: The Diplomatic Dimension – Three Panels
Sponsors
- Ukrainian Future Credit Union, Warren, MI
- Ukrainian Selfreliance Michigan Federal Credit Union, Warren, MI
(1) U.S./Ukraine and the Visegrad Group: Strengthening the Links
Moderator
- J. Micgiel (Columbia University)
Panelists
- H. Udovenko (Former Minister of Foreign Affairs)[Ukraine]
- G. Jeszynszky (Hungarian Ambassador to the US)
- I. Brzezinski (Senate/Foreign Relations)
Lead Discussant
- B. Winid (Minister Plenipotentiary/Embassy of Poland)
Suggested Topics: Economic Issues · Security Matters · Humanitarian Efforts
(2) U.S./Ukraine and GUUAM: Strengthening the Links
Moderator
- J. Moroney (DFI International/Associate)
Panelists
- I. Ostash (Chair/Rada Comm. on Foreign Affairs)[Ukraine]
- A. Pashayev (Azeri Ambassador to the US)
- G. Peret (State Department/Moldova-Belarus-Ukraine Desk)
Lead Discussant
- O. Sushko (CSPCFPU/Director) [Ukraine]
Suggested Topics: Economic Issues · Security Matters · Humanitarian Efforts
(3) U.S./Ukraine and the European Union: Strengthening the Links
Moderator
- J. Van Oudenaren (Library of Congress/European Division)
Panelists
- B. Tarasyuk (Former Minister of Foreign Affairs)[Ukraine]
- E. Koelsch (Embassy of Germany to the US/Deputy Head of Mission)
- A. Stent (Georgetown University/CEREES)
Lead Discussants
- M. Haltzel (Senate/Foreign Relations)
- B. Yaremenko (Foreign Ministry/US Desk Chief) [Ukraine]
Suggested Topics: Economic Issues · Security Matters · Humanitarian Efforts
5:00 PM – 5:40 PM — Roundtable Overview: U.S./Ukraine Relations and the War Against Terrorism
Sponsor
- American Foreign Policy Council
- National Democratic Institute
- International Republican Institute
Chair
- H. Pirchner (AFPC/President)
Keynote remarks
- C. Pascual (US Ambassador to Ukraine)
5:00 PM – 5:30 PM — Working Lunch: Russia and the U.S./Ukraine Nexus
Speaker
- B. Fedorak — (Steering Committee/Chairman)
Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
Press Release—UA Quest Roundtable II
U.S.-Ukraine Conference Rescheduled for Oct. 31 – Nov. 1, 2001; Prime Minister of Ukraine Anatoliy Kinakh to Address Roundtable
(September 2001 — announcing the conference’s rescheduling following the September 11th attacks)
WARREN, MI- The international conference in Washington, DC to analyze U.S.-Ukraine strategic relations, which was postponed due to the terrorist attacks on America, has been rescheduled for Wednesday, October 31, and Thursday, November 1, 2001, in the nation’s capital.
The organizers of the conference have also announced that Prime Minister of Ukraine Anatoliy Kinakh is expected to appear.
The first day of the conference, called “Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood: Roundtable II-Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership,” was scheduled to be held in the Hart Senate Office Building, Room 902. The second day’s events were scheduled to be held in the U.S. Capitol Building, Senate Caucus Room 5 (SC 5). The entire event has been moved to the Wyndham Washington DC [15th & M Streets]. Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, Ambassador Carlos Pascual, Rep. Bob Schaffer and Rep. Curt Weldon have confirmed their participation.
The Embassy of Ukraine, 3350 M St., NW, will host a pre-conference reception on Tuesday, October 30, 2001, 7:30 P.M. – 9:30 P.M. The Embassy is located at: 3350 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
For attendance information, contact the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine at (810) 757-7910 or the Ukrainian Central Information Service at (212) 473 0839
Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
US-Ukraine Relations and the War Against Terrorism
Featured remarks by Carlos Pascual, United States Ambassador to Ukraine
(Delivered November 1, 2001, during the Conference “Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood – Roundtable II: Taking Measure of a U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership”)
Thank you very much. I feel very at home looking around the audience and seeing so many friends from Ukraine, so many friends from the United States, and it is extremely pleasant to be here and share this time with you.
I hope you are not too asleep. I know I catch you at the end of a long conference and long period of time, and hopefully I will be able to provide some thought-provoking reflections on some of the things happening in Ukraine right now and the war against terrorism.
I want to make one public service announcement for myself and Steve Pifer. There is an article that we have written looking back on the past ten years of Ukraine. We had provided some copies earlier. I don’t know if any are left. The reason I draw it to your attention is because for any of you who have worked in the U.S. Government, you know what it takes to get an article published. You have to clear it through just about every single person you can imagine in the government. And so that article is indeed an official statement of US Government policy toward Ukraine right now. For a broader view of U.S. views toward Ukraine, I would encourage you to take a look at that. The Washington Quarterly will be publishing that at the end of November. The RT Steering Committee have very courteously allowed us to share an advance copy with you today.
On September 12th, as I left the embassy, I looked behind me and what I could see was a wall of flowers. And in that wall of flowers were small votive candles all along the fence that had been lit by ordinary people or guards. This is a statement of sympathy, a feeling that a tremendous tragedy had occurred, and that this tragedy was obviously directed against America, but it was a tragedy against the civilized world, because people could not imagine the inhumanity that could drive such an act.
It was the act of these simple people that so deeply touched everybody who could see their emotion that was expressed in very simple ways. I am not an expert on counter terrorism. But what I can do today, and what I will try to do, is talk about some of the mood that we see in Ukraine, some of the actions that Ukraine has taken to join the International Coalition Against Terrorism, and to try to share with you some of the questions and issues that repeatedly get raised with me in Ukraine. To give you a sense of how Ukraine is struggling with this question now.
I began already with a mood. It was really an incredible outpouring of human sentiment. Thousands of people throughout the country came to sign condolence books, sent letters, made phone calls – a man from here calling and saying: “I have a unique type of blood. How can I donate it?”, man from Lviv saying: “I am a firefighter. How can I volunteer my help?”, a man from Kyiv saying: “I am a specialist in treating burns. What can I do to volunteer and how can I help?” There is a sense that people wanted to give of themselves because a tremendous violation had occurred against all of us. Since then there have been numerous memorial concerts. I was particularly struck by one organized by musicians, just a group of musicians, who decided to have an event because they felt that at 40 days after this tragedy, that they needed to commemorate in some way. And so these musicians came together in a church and quietly had a ceremony of music to show their empathy and their concern.
Within the government, the response was almost immediate. About two hours or so after we had understood the tragic events that were unfolding, I called the Minister of Interior and he said, “We have already increased the police presence around the Embassy.” They immediately increased the security around all American facilities. They increased security around American businesses, particularly high profile businesses.
The next morning the Foreign Minister came with the entire senior team of the Foreign Ministry of the Embassy to express their condolences. The following day President Kuchma invited me to his office to talk about the tragedy and how Ukraine can be supportive, and the kinds of things that Ukraine can commit to the International Coalition.
The Chairman of the National Security and Defense Council sat down with us and reviewed strategic issues internally within Ukraine on how Ukraine was trying to enhance its own security. The leaders of the RADDA expressed their concern individually and in groups, reaching out to say that ‘we are with the United States in this endeavor.’
And this tragedy, in a sense, was an awakening, a rude awakening, that terrorism is a force that knows no barriers, that it has no boundaries, that it has no values, and that it can strike anywhere. In Ukraine, President Bush’s statement has I think struck a real chord and that is that countries are either with the civilized world or they are against it. And as a result of that, I think, many, many people in Ukraine have been re-evaluating Ukraine’s position in the world, and the policies that it pursues to integrate with the international community and the Euro-Atlantic community. I think that there has been a reaffirming of commitment to integration and that there have been practical steps taken to confirm that commitment.
There are other things that we need to watch carefully. Herman’s warning is a very important one. In any society, at times like this, there can be authoritarian tendencies. And it needs to be very clear that fighting terrorism is never a rationale in any society to crack down on societal freedoms. And it is also important to make very clear that a strong stance on anti-terrorism is not a bridge over some path around the kind of political and economic reforms that are necessary to become a prosperous state.
Yesterday you heard from Prime Minister Kinakh, who was unequivocal, and who said that economic reform and political openness must go hand in hand, because only when the two of these come together can you really get a prosperous society.
Earlier on Secretary Powell talked about how the war against terrorism must be a multi-faceted war. That yes, there may be a military component, but it is much broader than that, that it is diplomatic, that it involves financial actions, the sharing of intelligence, law enforcement, humanitarian activities. Let me take a moment to talk about some of the actions that Ukraine has been taking on those various fronts, starting with the diplomatic. I see my friend Ihor Kharchenko, the Deputy Foreign Minister, and I want to draw particular attention to Ihor, because he has been a point person in the Foreign Ministry on the coordination of counter terrorism activities, and has been a constant and daily partner on this activities.
Beginning even on September 11th, Ukraine was a partner in drawing together an international coalition by playing a crucial role in moving forward U.N. Security Council Resolution 1368.There is a piece of this that Ukraine supported and advanced, and I want to read it, because I think it is particularly important. The resolution calls on all states to work together urgently to bring justice to the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of these terrorist acts, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting, or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.
In other words, Ukraine early on, immediately recognized that the war against terrorism needed to be properly pursued thru U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which focused on financial actions. It was also very active vis-a-vis NATO. In September, Ukraine and NATO issued a joint statement, and again I will read a short piece of that. ‘NATO and Ukraine condemn in the strongest possible terms these atrocities, and stand united in their commitment to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and punished. In the spirit of its distinctive partnership with NATO, Ukraine stands ready to contribute fully to this effort.’That was an particularly important statement because Ukraine indicated that this former enemy now is a friend and they were united together in a common international cause.
Ukraine has also taken important actions in the context of GUUAM, making strong statements against terrorism and now preparing a much more detailed agenda for further action. And in fact I think next week in Central Europe, Poland will host a conference on bringing together the Central European nations to develop a common agenda against terrorism.
And throughout this, what we have seen is that Ukraine has recognized that there must be an international movement to combat terrorism, that it needs to be a part of that international movement, and that international movement is critical to strip away assets from terrorists to ensure that terrorists have no safe haven, to make it impossible for terrorists to travel freely, and to isolate the countries who support terrorists.
Sometimes people ask “what is it that diplomacy can contribute”? These are real contributions and Ukraine has been at the heart of those contributions. On the financial side, Ukraine has acted very much lock and step with the United States. After the United States issued its executive orders identifying organizations and individuals who have been known to be associated with terrorist activities, the National Bank of Ukraine took those executive orders and converted them to its own executive orders, which it issued to commercial banks throughout Ukraine, ordering them to freeze the assets of any entities that are associated with that list of 57 names, which have been provided in our two executive orders.
On October 20th President Kuchma called together many of the country’s leading financial experts to discuss how to combat money laundering. And as a result of that there was a unanimous resolution that the leadership in Ukraine needs to move forward with a bill to combat money laundering. An important action was taken withdrawing a bill that was in the Rada which had serious flaws, to in fact revise it, make it stronger, close the loopholes, and ensure that the bill was structured in a way that would allow Ukraine to cooperate with international partners. And that process of revising the legislation is going on right now, and we hope to see it introduced sometime soon.
In addition to that, Ukraine has also been sharing with us information on potentially suspicious financial transactions, allowing us to exchange information back and forth, so that if we see issues that are indeed suspicious or dangerous, we can help the law enforcement officials in Ukraine target those activities.
On our side we have committed to provide assistance to the National Bank of Ukraine and its endeavors to implement these executive orders. We have been providing comments on money laundering, anti-money laundering legislation to help it be consistent with international standards. And we have committed to Ukraine that if this money laundering legislation passes that we will work with them on implementing a financial intelligence unit which is critical to in fact enforce an anti-money laundering regime.
But all of us need to be aware of a particular challenge. All of you have heard different estimates of how much Ukraine’s economy is in the gray sector. Some say 40%, others say up to 60%. The point of this is that the very techniques that people use to circumvent taxes are exactly the same techniques that organized crime and money launderers use. and in an environment where there may be billions of dollars operating in this gray sector, identifying and isolating those funds that are associated with terrorism is going to be hard. And so we all need to lend our creativity to this challenge. And in fact I would extent to any of you, if you have thoughts on how we can proceed on this front, we need your suggestions.
On the intelligence side, I would say that the cooperation that we’ve seen with the SBU has been unprecedented. Obviously, because these are intelligence issues, I am not going to go into detail. But what I can say is that there is a newfound willingness to provide one another with leads on potentially dangerous activities, provide each other with leads on critical information, and as a result of that we are building a better understanding of how terrorist networks operate. What it means to conduct mutual rapid checks of suspicious activities, and how to be able to help one another in an emergency.
On the law enforcement front, I have mentioned already the extensive help that we’ve gotten at the Embassy. Ukraine has started to focus in addition to that, real attention on its borders. It has increased the presence of customs officials and border guards. It has put in place additional mobile patrols that are operating between border checkpoints. It has added canine units on many border points. The U.S. has committed to help. We are working on a program that will deliver mobile detection equipment that will allow the Ukrainian customs authorities to be able to look at large vehicles that are transiting border points without in fact having them to completely unload. We have been providing radiation detection equipment. We have been looking at providing some facilities that could help facilitate collocation with the Moldavian authorities on the Transdnestrian Border and the Moldavian Border.
We are looking at another project which can provide a technology of checking passports and other information as people cross border points that would automatically feed that information into capitals and into Odessa, and become the basis for a much larger EU project.
What is still somewhat of a problematic point is the Russian Border. I think, Constantine…correct me if I’m wrong, the border points are approximately 20 kilometers apart on the Russian Border. It is a long distance. It is porous. Everybody acknowledges it. It is a risk. Ukraine needs help on this issue. We have begun to look at it. It is something which we will certainly be discussing with the European Union, when we get back we hope to have a more extensive conversation about this in Kyiv.
On the military and humanitarian front, Ukraine has provided blanket clearance for over flight of military transport aircraft. These are the transport aircraft that are bringing in the humanitarian rations into Afghanistan. Ukraine has allowed for three emergency landing fields. Ukraine has expressed a specific interest in trying to cooperate with the United States in helping Uzbekistan, one of its partners in GUUAM, given the especially difficult situation that Uzbekistan faces today. Right after the tragedy on September 11th Ukraine offered to the United States a mobile hospital, which tragically we were not able to use….not because we didn’t want to, but in fact, because the main problem was that there were so many people who simply died in this tragedy that our hospitals could in fact cope with us, and in that the mobile hospital was not needed. Ukraine has offered humanitarian aid to Uzbekistan, particularly with the provision of wheat seeds. And overall, I think what we have seen in Ukraine is a country that is serious about its international obligations, and that it is acting on them.
Now let me discuss some of the key questions that I consistently get in Ukraine about the war on terrorism and the International Coalition.
The first is on Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s future and the impact on civilians. The government has been extremely supportive of the military campaign. In public opinion there is probably a 50/50 split in polls that I have seen. Some people ask why. I think one of the things that Ukraine lives with is the memory of the past and the tragic Soviet legacy within Afghanistan, and the fact that so many Ukrainians were involved in this quagmire and so it makes them scared about what they see and they wonder how the United States is going to cope with this situation.
There are several points that I think are important to state. One is that in this military action the United States is not targeting civilians. It is a tragedy when civilians are killed, but we are not targeting civilians and that makes a complete distinction from what the terrorists have done. We also need to remember that we are beyond the Cold War. In that Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were enemies. We tried to undermine each other and we have an opportunity today to cooperate in ways where we use our resources to actually build democracy and prosperity in the Afghanistan in the long-term, rather than use them to in effect tear apart the state in a way that was a consequence of a global rivalry between two super powers.
What we hope for Afghanistan is that the Afghan people have the opportunity to define their future. The Taliban certainly has not been representative of the Afghan people. President Bush has indicated that we will work with other countries, with the United Nations, and that the United Nations will play a key role in this long-term effort and we will support it.
This is of intense interest to Ukraine’s neighbors, because it will affect their democracy and their stability. It is of intense interest to Ukraine, because what we have seen is that Ukraine has become a transit point for drugs, many of those drugs coming from Afghanistan. The second question I get asked is about the tragic accident on October 4th, with the downing of the Siberian Airlines TU154 plane, and how this plays into the context of the international fight against terrorism. This accident came at a terrible time, a time when there was tremendous tension in the international community and in the Middle East. And indeed, the slow pace of accepting responsibility for these actions was problematic, and for some people it began to raise questions about whether there was a return to the past of a tragic past where accidents simply were not acknowledged.
Accidents occur. In the meeting which Secretary Powell had with Prime Minister Kinakh, he told about his experience when he was National Security Advisor in 1988, and how the United States shot down an Iranian Airbus. Within a short period of time the United States acknowledged its fault for that. And indeed what we have seen in the past week or so have been some very constructive actions on Ukraine’s part: a strong apology from President Kuchma, acceptance of resignation of those military officials who were responsible, a strong call for civilian control of the military. Prime Minister Kinakh, in his discussions here, has focused on the problem. He says that there is still too much of a Soviet mentality, that it needs to grow out of the old generations, because there is still too much of a tendency to make excuses, and not enough of a tendency to immediately accept responsibility, and that this is one of Ukraine’s challenges indeed for the future.
A third issue, a philosophical question that often gets raised, as a result of this tragedy: Does this mean that there is evil in the world? And this particularly was focused on in Ukraine at the end of September at the 60th Anniversary – anniversary is the wrong word, the 60th Commemoration of the tragedies at Babyn Yar when over 100,000 people were assassinated. Minister Tarasyuk and I were sitting next to each other, in fact at a television program sponsored by 1+1. In that program, one of the things that came out is that the German people are not evil people. The German people are good people. But sometimes good people can be manipulated by misguided leaders. Sometimes it can happen in the name of religion. Sometimes it can happen simply out of arrogance and sometimes it can happen in the name of nationalism. All this is misguided. And we need to make clear matters in reference to the war on terrorism. We are not talking about a war on religion. It’s not a war on race. It’s not a war on ethnicity. It is a reality that occurs because of human frailty; in reality, there are individuals who will try to manipulate those who are oppressed for negative ends. They have to be stopped.
I get questions sometimes about what the implications of this war on terrorism are for the Crimean Tartars, because they are predominantly Muslim. I want to tell you that I have met with the Crimean Tartar leadership. These people are committed to peace. It is also true that there is discontent among the Crimean Tartars. They have concerns particularly about land, water, and their ability to effectively be represented in the Crimean legislator. And I think the Ukrainian government is serious about this dialogue. President Kuchma has gone to Crimea and met with the leadership. And a real question that exists on the table right now is will the Crimean Tartars find a formula that will effectively allow them to be represented in their government so that they feel that they can express their views through legitimate political means.
It also has focused attention on another point. When people are disillusioned they lose hope and that creates risks. And I hope that for Ukraine, one of the things that this has done is to reinforce or renew the commitment to reform, because that commitment to reform is also a commitment to ensure the stability of the country.
I get asked often, and many of you here I am sure will be interested in this, about the safety of Americans and the threat of anthrax in Ukraine. There is a warden network that has been established in Ukraine for all American citizens. We use that warden network to get any notices about information out as quickly as we can. I am going to give you a phone number if any of you have relatives or friends there that you want to make sure are on this warden network. It is 490- 44222. That is a Kiev number – area code 44. The Embassy itself continues to operate fully. We have not missed one day of operation. As I indicated earlier, there has been an extensive increase of security around American facilities, not just U.S. Government facilities.
There have been a lot of anthrax hoaxes in Ukraine. I know I have seen at least 50 that have been tallied. None have actually proved positive so far. We have distributed information on how to respond, obviously within the Embassy and the American community. We have had contacts with the Administrative Emergency situations. We have had a chance to review their procedures. We have seen them respond I think quite effectively. But it has also been a reminder that no matter how far away a country might feel that it is from the center of the action, that vigilance is absolutely critical.
And finally, the question and the issue that I would like to close with is a question that I was asked from day one. How could this tragedy happen in the United States? And what I have often said is that in some ways it is logical, because the United States is the freest society in the world, and with freedom there is risk. The world has certainly changed since the end of the Cold War. Borders don’t mean what they used to. Money moves around the world in a flash like this. Intelligence and technology can be shared like this. It can create dangers for proliferation, and indeed it is a call to all of us to all countries to redouble our efforts on non-proliferation. And perhaps for Ukraine, one of the questions it may raise is the consideration of some of its relationships, particularly I would say with Iraq. But the answer to this freedom, and the risk it imposes, is not to return to the past. That is certainly going in the wrong direction. The answer is to in fact protect that freedom and to mitigate the risks that we find in our society. Because, in the end, we find our strength in freedom and in human dignity. These are the very values that those terrorists attacked. And if we sacrifice that freedom in human dignity, then the terrorists win.
This principle is important to today’s Ukraine. For the past two days you have all focused on Ukraine’s economic prosperity, on questions of investment and growth, on freedom of speech, on Ukraine’s upcoming election on creating a viable democracy and Ukraine’s integration with Europe.
These are the very values that make Ukraine part of the civilized world, the world that we seek to protect. They are also the values that are at the core of our bilateral relationship. Some will ask did U.S./Ukrainian relationship automatically improve as a result of September 11th? What I would say is that if Ukraine takes steps to strengthen its commitment to political and market reform in context of the realities after September 11th, yes of course those bilateral relations should obviously improve.
September 11th will indeed be a landmark point in history. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt that we will all have to look back on this date and recall the tragedy, because there was a huge upheaval. But it is now in our power, all of us, to try to make this a date where we have all seen the common values of humanity that unite us, and to use those common values to draw the world together.
For Ukraine this can be a moment of awakening, a real recognition that there is no time to lose in finding its place in the Euro-Atlantic community. And, as has been stressed throughout these past two days, that integration with the Euro-Atlantic community will depend on steps from within, though, as President Bush said in his speech in Warsaw last June, if Ukraine takes those steps, we should reward it.
Because of the international coalition against terrorism, we are all today in a common international endeavor—to stand up for freedom as a defining value in our societies. And we are all in this room in a common endeavor to promote a free democratic and prosperous Ukraine. Let us stay united. Thank you.
Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
US-Ukraine Relations and GUUAM
Presentation by Ambassador Hafiz Pashayev of the Republic of Azerbaijan — U.S./Ukraine and GUUAM: Strengthening the Links
(Delivered November 1, 2001, during the Conference “Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood – Roundtable II: Taking Measure of a U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership.” For more information on GUUAM, visit www.guuam.org.)
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is with great pleasure that I accepted the invitation to speak here, and that’s because of the following reasons. First, it is very good experience to be a part of an event, which is being so much supported by the Ukrainian community of the United States. It is an impressive gathering which shows that the support of Ukrainian-Americans is a considerable factor in ensuring that Ukraine copes with all difficulties on its path to mature statehood. Secondly, the issue itself is related to GUUAM and that I always welcome, trying not to miss any opportunity to speak on this topic.
Today my task is a very challenging one, yet very interesting. I, just like my distinguished co-panelists, will be trying to cover multi-faceted links existing between the United States and GUUAM, where, as you know, Ukraine is joined by Georgia, Uzbekistan, Moldova, and my country, Azerbaijan.
Dr. Brzezinski whose opinion I value immensely, has on more than one occasion observed that it is not easy to persuade the United States to engage in cooperation with individual foreign countries, unless this country is not Russia or China. The US is more accessible to groups of nations.
Such was the story of the GUUAM. This CFE-born group of four (at the moment of its establishment) was a product of close cooperation among delegations of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, which started during the talks on conventional arms and forces limitations in Vienna. It was a very interesting and controversial time, a time when interests of great powers often contradicted each other and combined with utter lack of clear vision and understanding of the post-Soviet states. These four nations, before even the group was formally established appeared together in a Senate 1997 resolution which demanded that their lawful interests be taken into account in the flank package.
In 1997 during the first Summit in Strasbourg the Presidents of the four nations have made, in their Declaration, a precise definition of the group’s objectives, which remain unchanged now. They emphasized how important it is to develop the interaction “for the sake of a stable and secure Europe guided by the principles of respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, inviolability of state frontiers, mutual respect, cooperation, democracy, supremacy of law and respect for human rights”.
In 1999, at the NATO-50 Summit in Washington Uzbekistan joined the group and GUUAM’s nature started being perceived by the international community, and, specifically by the U.S., as something wider than merely a group of nations sharing similar agenda of arms control regime. It has become an important structure for enhancing regional economic cooperation through the development of Europe-Caucasus-Asia transportation corridor, and a forum for discussion on various levels of existing security problems, promoting conflict resolution and elimination of other risks and threats.
It is at that period of time that this group has become an example of something, not really found before and something which I would like to mention specifically. It is the very composition of GUUAM, which is diverse both ethnically (Slavic, Turkic, Roman, and Iberian) and religiously (Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, Shi’ah Moslem, and Sunni Moslem). I dare say that in a certain sense the decades of the Soviet regime when we were all made to subjugate our differences to our rulers’ aims, have helped us in the period after the USSR’s collapse. We had little difficulty in learning to harmonize our uniqueness with a common, and very natural, goal – to become truly independent.
In the year 2000 this development continued further, turning GUUAM into a very effective forum for interaction, at least from Azerbaijani perspective. Along with on-going regular meetings of the Committee of National Coordinators and other get-togethers on the high expert level (the next one, by the way, is scheduled to commence in less than a week in Baku), a number of other significant and high-level events took place. In May of 2000 a seminar was held on GUUAM in the US Senate under the aegis of the Foreign Relations European Affairs chairman Gordon Smith, concentrating on the approach of the participating countries to the future of this group. GUUAM’s contribution into counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and sensitive technologies was specifically emphasized.
In yet another proof of GUUAM’s growing visibility on the Capitol Hill the US Senate passed the Defense and Security Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation contains one whole section dealing with GUUAM and providing $ 8,5 mil in the FY 2001 and $ 37 mil in the FY 2002. I highly appreciate efforts of the many senators who fought for this bill and also for providing better assistance to GUUAM. We are working to get funds appropriated in accordance with this authorization.
In November, 2000 in Vienna Ministers of Foreign Affairs of all five members have adopted the Joint Communique, approving the Perspective Plan of Development of GUUAM for 2000-2001, discussing establishment of the Public Consultative Council, draft Agreement on the free trade zone, etc. A meeting of the Ministers with the US Secretary of State took place there too, re-iterating the ever-growing American interest to GUUAM. A big step towards institutionalizing GUUAM was made at the GUUAM Summit in June, 2001 in Yalta.
The US universities have started showing considerable academic interest to GUUAM, covering multi-faceted interaction within the group. A number of events, including the GUUAM workshop at Stanford, and discussions at the Washington University in St.Louis, also took place in 2000. This year’s Harvard initiative on GUUAM within the framework of the Black Sea Security program is an excellent example and an indicator of American public’s growing attention.
If asked which areas of cooperation within GUUAM are the most important, I’d say that there are three top priorities, which fully coincide with the proclaimed US policy goals in the post-Soviet space (as you know, these goals comprise support to the independence of states, their transformation to democracy and market – oriented societies, efforts aimed at energy development, as well as at resolution of conflicts):
First priority for GUUAM is political interaction within the framework of integration into Euro-Atlantic and European structures of security and cooperation. It includes establishment of interaction with the UN, OSCE, European Union and other international organizations, as well as of dialogue with NATO. It is fully acknowledged by the GUUAM countries that developing safe and reliable infrastructure which comprises well-trained and well-equipped forces and institutions will undoubtedly make a considerable contribution to the European and world security architecture.
Second, economic cooperation. Initial important steps were made on the path towards establishing the Europe-South Caucasus-Central Asia transit corridor, in which the GUUAM countries would play the very important role because of their geostrategic location.
Cooperation in energy sector includes working together on several major goals, which comprise minimizing effects of external financial crises in the GUUAM countries, accelerating the development of Caspian oil deposits and constructing multiple pipelines to the international markets. Main Export Pipeline, which is in the stage of detailed engineering, will become a backbone for the whole transportation corridor. I think, it is high time for all of us, including our Western partners, to think about the pipeline security issues. It is not an issue of the future any more, it is the matter of immediate urgency.
This year’s US-supported seminar on cooperation among the Chambers of Commerce of GUUAM member-states, held in Baku and attended also by representatives of Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Kazakhstan, became another vivid demonstration of the commonality of economic interests beyond energy sector.
And, finally, third. Cooperation in opposing ethnic and religious intolerance. The GUUAM states believe that both religious extremism and ethnic terrorism are among main reasons of numerous regional conflicts. And we in Azerbaijan, with 20% of our territory under foreign military occupation and approximately 1 million refugees and displaced, attach special importance to peaceful settlement of regional conflicts based on respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of the frontiers of all states. The recent visit of the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Zlenko to Baku provided another proof of the commonality of interests in this area.
This goal is becoming more and more significant today, when an international coalition of nations is standing by the United States in its fight against terrorism. Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan are important allies in the US efforts to eradicate terror, and the other three GUUAM members – Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, have also pledged their support.
Resolution of conflicts, countering aggressive separatism and all forms of chauvinism, along with putting an end to arms deliveries to the zones of conflicts, which create fertile environment for terror, have become as important to our nations, as other things, which sound much more universal (political interaction, economic and security-related cooperation etc.)
In the context of all the aforementioned tasks NATO-GUUAM cooperation, activities in the framework of PfP programs and relations with the United States are of considerable importance to all five states.
In the recent year cooperation and mutual support of the five countries at the international forums have strengthened, with the GUUAM members not only coordinating their positions, but as well undertaking joint initiatives. The inter-cultural dialogue and common statement on terrorism at the United Nations are two most explicit examples of that. Most recently another statement, presented by the Azerbaijani representative to the UN on behalf of the five GUUAM states has shown that this cooperation is ever-growing.
For our western partners interrelationship with GUUAM can become the core of their policy in two regions at the same time. GUUAM’s role as a link between the areas of Black Sea and Caspian Sea is, without doubt, just another of the numerous advantages it can provide in terms of cooperation.
Let me close by saying that we, in GUUAM, are proud of what we have already achieved, the way we have helped each other to overcome our common problems. We are only 10 years old, all of us, and the problems we encounter are the same. In the future we should deal with them on a collective basis, helping each other out, as friends do.
We are also fully aware that we need to work hard to make GUUAM fully functional, and it is us who are ultimately responsible for the success of this organization. Still, we could use some help, and we trust that it can be found here, in America, where experts have quite some time ago realized that any assistance to GUUAM, be it direct or indirect, is in the best interest of the West, and the US public slowly but surely arrives to the same conclusion.
It is especially important at a time when the world community is coming together as a solid coalition in a face-off with international terrorism.
Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Roundtable II
Taking Measure of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership
US-Ukraine Relations and the International Community
Keynote address by Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
(Delivered October 31, 2001, during the Conference “Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood – Roundtable II: Taking Measure of a U.S./Ukraine Strategic Partnership”)
Thank you, Steve [Larrabee/Chair—ed.], for that very kind introduction. I also and especially want to thank the organizers of today’s conference. Equally, I wish to acknowledge the very distinguished guests who will be participating in this conference. And in my mentioning a few—I am only mentioning a few—there are many who deserve special recognition for the good efforts on behalf of US-Ukraine relations: Prime Minster Kinakh, of course, Ambassador Hryshchenko, Dep. Asst. Secretary Mira Baretta, Ambassador Pascual, who will be joining us, if he is not here already, as well as Dep. Foreign Minister Kharchenko and [UA Presidential Advisor] Mr. Fialko. I mention this because convening such an impressive roster of participants and attendees is really a tribute, I think, to the work that has gone into preparing for this event and to the importance of the subject: Ukraine’s Quest for Mature Nation Statehood. I think it was not easy putting this conference together. After it was postponed following the very tragic events of September 11th, I admire the conference organizers’ determination and appreciate greatly the opportunity to speak. In fact, I participated in last year’s session and I could say I’m very delighted to return this year, albeit wearing a different hat this time. And more in particular, as an American of Ukrainian descent, let me say that I’m especially honored to be here this morning with all of you.
This morning I have been asked to address US-Ukraine relations in the context of international community—in the context of global affairs. The international community has, of course, been changed forever by the very terrible and tragic events of September 11th and the consequent war against terrorism led by the United States. The tragedy of September 11 was an attack, not only against Americans, but against humanity and the civilized world. The terrorism that perpetuated that day resulted in thousands dead and injured, including nationals from roughly eighty countries, including at least two from Ukraine. It represented an assault upon freedom throughout the world. Secretary Powell, I think, put it quite well when he said “this attack wasn’t an assault on America, it was an assault on civilization, it was an assault on democracy, it was an assault on the right of innocent people to live their lives”.
September 11th really, truly changed the world forever. Yet, while there are parts of US foreign policy that have changed accordingly, there are also certain benchmarks, certain constants in our policy that cannot and will not be altered.
The foundations of President Bush’s foreign policy remain unchanged, namely the promotion of international stability, international security, prosperity and democracy. The fight against terrorism has naturally assumed great importance in light of September 11th. But it doesn’t mean that we have to sacrifice our beliefs. What Thomas Jefferson said more than two centuries ago still applies today. He said “the spirit of our citizens, rising with the strength and majesty which show the loveliness of freedom, will make this government in practice what it is in principle, a model for the protection of man in a state of freedom and order”.
Just as we remain true to our beliefs and principles, we stay committed to building a strong, vibrant relationship between the United States and Ukraine. We have valued greatly Ukraine’s unwavering support in our battle against terrorism. We have worked closely with Ukraine on a whole range of issues during the two years of Ukraine’s service on the United Nation’s Security Council. Now since September 11th, its positions on the Security Council have been especially appreciated as has Ukraine’s support in other international forums. Ukraine’s desire to be an integral member of the European community and its goal to have a place in western institutions are to be commended and supported by the United States; in fact they are supported by the United States.
The success of these efforts, however, I believe depends on Ukraine’s ability to accelerate political an economic reforms. To belong to the western community of nations requires living up to certain political and economic standards, as laid out, for example, by the OSCE. The future of Ukraine depends on Ukrainians recognizing what they must do and doing it. Democratic institutions, including a respect for human rights and a market economy constitute the building blocks of European nation states and are the underpinning of Euro-Atlantic integration. They are also part of the engine, I believe, that promotes Euro-Atlantic integration. Clearly essential to any country’s political development is tolerance, even the nurturing of a constant national dialogue. This includes hard-hitting journalism that may at times be very critical of government, of its policies and of its officials.
Granted, when I think about the United States and its own experience and the trials and tribulations of our own experience, there are things to ponder; we speak from over 200 years of experience, yet we are still perfecting our own political system and our process. But one of the first things democratic leaders in democratic societies, and I know many of our own public officials certainly learn it quickly, is the need to develop a thick skin. Responsible criticism should not only be tolerated, it should be encouraged because the democratic society depends on the free exchange of ideas, by an informed and active citizen rate. Indeed, this is one of democracy’s strengths.
The recent tragic [Ukrainian] accident with the Russian airliner offers a painful learning experience; when bad news hits, maybe the best way to deal with it is to get out in front, however difficult or embarrassing the issue may be. And I think it underscores and reinforces the importance of a free, vigorous professional press. Over the past years, this is one of the areas that I think Ukraine has been challenged with and has been grappling with. The harassment of journalists and the closing of newspapers culminated as we know in the sad deaths of two journalists within the last thirteen months.
To demonstrate, I think, its commitment to freedom of the press, these issues need to be addressed comprehensively, resulting in accountability. Doing so I think will connote Ukraine’s manifesting really a full respect for all its constitutional freedoms. I mention this only merely as a friend and really to highlight what really is in Ukraine’s own interest. Citizens in any country deserve full accountability.
Elections are another way, I believe, to ensure political accountability. We look very much forward to Ukraine’s parliamentary elections next March and to a transparent and fair election campaign & lead up to election day. Further, progress on establishing rule of law and creating an independence judiciary, I offer, would be another cornerstone. Already, I think, that progress in this regard has taken place, but there needs to be more movement. Clearly, we regard a successful transition to a market economy as another indicator of Ukraine’s becoming a major player in the international community. It’s quite significant that Ukraine’s economy has enormous potential and during the last eighteen months, Ukraine’s economy has taken off and continues to surpass expectations. Ukraine tripled IMF and World Bank estimates when its economy grew by six percent in real terms in 2000 after nine straight years of decline. The pace of growth has actually accelerated during 2001. Total economic output during the first seven months of 2001 was 7.4% higher in real terms than during the same period last year. Inflation during the same period was a manageable 3.7%, well within IMF targets and vastly below the 20% for the same period in 2000.
At the same time that one looks at all these very positive developments in terms of Ukraine’s economic development, Ukraine is also grappling with issues of corruption. We face that in our society. It is an issue that is confronted in many societies. Investment in Ukraine, foreign and domestic has not been maybe what it could be, largely due to concerns over corruption and also fears that maybe the legal system may not be transparent in its procedures. Concluding the work on a new civil code and fostering transparency and accountability, I think, will really improve the overall and business environment and spur much-need divestment. One should not of course underestimate the devastating impact of seventy years of communist rule and what it had on Ukraine politically and economically. The transition from that legacy is by no means an easy one and cannot be accomplished overnight. Yet Ukraine can only benefit from an acceleration of its political, economic and social reforms.
As Ukraine determines its future course, it must take into account the effect of its decisions on regional and global security; its actions on a number of these fronts has been very positive.
For example, President Kuchma took a great step forward for Ukraine and its neighbors by closing the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant last year.
The country’s responsible handling of nuclear weapons left from the break-up of the Soviet Union, I believe, deserves very similar praise. Just yesterday, Ukraine destroyed its last nuclear missile silo, fulfilling its pledge to give up the nuclear arsenal that it had inherited.
We welcome a strong relationship between NATO and Ukraine. Such a relationship will go a long way in helping stabilize potential regional and global problems; in the long term, it also cannot but help bilateral ties between the US and Ukraine.
Ukraine’s future clearly will be influenced by the future of Ukrainian youth. The next generation matters. It matters in any society. For our part, we strongly support exchange programs for the young people of Ukraine. Our experience in the region has taught us that one of the best ways to leverage change is through exposing the younger generation to new ideas and experiences through exchanges, through training and educational programs, along with support for non-governmental organizations. Since independence, the United States has brought close to sixteen thousand Ukrainians to the United States and through the Next Generation initiative, thousands of additional Ukrainian high school, university and graduate students and other young professionals will come to the United States to study and gain practical experience through internships.
Ukraine clearly has made some very important early steps. And those steps are often the hardest. As a country that re-gained its independence a mere ten years ago, Ukraine still faces many challenges. I believe that chief among these is continuing progress in a number of areas I refer to: building a civil society and all its various parts as well as the building of a vibrant market economy. The United States is very committed to help Ukraine, but actually, really only in a supporting role, because the real responsibility does lie with the people and with the government of Ukraine. But we will be there and we want to be there because this relationship is a very valued one, a one which is vibrant and which will continue to be vibrant.
The impressive assembly of panelists and attendees here today for this conference reflects the interest in and support for Ukraine in the United States. It is important to remember that true friends help each other in times of need. And they also let each other know about shortcomings and that works both ways. This defines precisely our relations with Ukraine. In sum, Ukraine continues to be of strategic importance to us.
I’d like to thank you and also wish you a most vibrant and full exchange here during the conference; I’m delighted to have had the occasion to speak with a number of you; and I wish you very much success in your deliberations today. And thank you.
