By Luba Shara, Washington Correspondent
Ukrayinska Pravda, Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, April 26, 2004

Myth one is widely spread in Kiev and deals with Ukraine's imagined advantages derived from its participation in the peacekeeping mission in Iraq. Last year, when a decision whether to send the military contingent to Iraq was debated at the Parliament of Ukraine, arguments were made that this would give economic advantages to Ukraine's economy, particularly would help Ukrainian businesses in securing any potential contracts for rebuilding a post-war Iraq.

As a result, Ukraine has the fourth-largest military contingent among the multinational coalition forces in Iraq, four casualties of war and not a single contract, whereas Russia, which contributed no troops and was opposing the war all along, has managed to secure a billion-dollar contract with the Iraqi energy ministry for a Russian company, Interenergoservis.

During the recent Washington visit of Ukraine's delegation headed by economics minister Derkach, the Ukrainians wanted to know what became of the contracts. Americans went on preaching about procedural workings, open-bidding particulars and other bureaucratic ins and outs, which all appear to have hardly anything to do with the foreign policy.

"A contract that comes from Ukraine is compared to a contract that comes from, say Australia, and a contract that comes from some country like Brazil that doesn't have any military contribution there. If the Brazilian tender is the cheapest, best meets the terms of that tender there is no way to say 'Wait a minute Ukraine is making important contribution. We are direct-contracting Ukrainian.' We asked that question, raised that question.

However, they overlooked to mention the fact, that Ms. Allbright, being a US Secretary of State at the time, represented no US businesses. Unlike the Ukrainian president, she neither had nor could ever exercised the so-called "administrative resource" against any US companies.

It is curious, what myths drove Yevhen Marchuk, then the head of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, when on June 5, 2003 he spoke at the Parliament presenting a presidential bill, "On approval of the Ukrainian President's decision to send a peacekeeping contingent as Ukraine 's participation in the international peacekeeping operation in the Republic of Iraq". He claimed that "the intention to participate in rebuilding Iraq was expressed by over 80 Ukrainian companies."

"Understandably, not all of them will be able to overcome the competition," said Marchuk. "Yet $5.2 bln, which has already been set aside to finance the first phase of rebuilding Iraq, is a convincing argument for the effective application of efforts".

And further he went on, "Considering the fact, that solving economic problems in Iraq is significantly conditioned by the ongoing process of military-political developments and even a temporary presence of Ukrainian peacekeeping military units in Iraq will allow us to eradicate the existing obstacles on the way of engaging Ukrainian enterprises in rebuilding Iraq, and renew the former level of Ukraine's economic cooperation with the new government.." (http://www.rada.gov.ua/zakon/skl4/3session/STENOGR/DOC/55.DOC)

Concurrence in time of Ukrainian and American presidential elections works to the benefit of a candidate who would represent the incumbent authorities, since the Bush Administration will have scarcely any time this fall to focus on Ukraine. The main priority will be to get re-elected.

In addition, the United States is at war and the psychology of a wartime footing makes the US pay little if any attention to the peacetime diplomatic intricacies. All who support America are put down to the friendlies list, including even such odious regimes as the one in Uzbekistan. And anyone who is against is assigned to the opposite camp.

The multinational antiterrorist coalition is extremely important to the Bush Administration, at least for its propaganda value, since its presence in Iraq, the US and UK troops aside, can be seen more like a "Potemkin village" than a genuine war effort.

Leonid Kuchma, by sending troops to Iraq, just got qualified for the America 's friends category, albeit temporary, and therefore in the nearest future one can expect more letters from Bush to Kuchma, in which the US President will be thanking for the presence Ukrainian troops in Iraq.

The more the political opposition in Ukraine will be insisting on a troops withdrawal, the more grateful letters will be coming and the stronger Kuchma's position will be in the eyes of the incumbent US Administration.

Bush does not write letters to Yuschenko. On June 5, 2003 only 39 members of the Yuschenko's "Our Ukraine" parliamentary faction voted for sending Ukrainian peacekeepers to Iraq. So let us not jump to conclusion who is truly a US puppet in Ukraine.

Myth tree is about an America which interferes with the electoral process in Ukraine in an attempt to get its "puppet" (i.e. Yuschenko) elected as the president. This horror story is spread by a wide circle of political actors, ranging from the Communists to Chernomyrdin, a Russian Ambassador in Ukraine.

In reality the whole scheme does not look as sound as the above figures allege. The United States will not be giving any money to the opposition campaign in Ukraine (neither through the USAID nor any other funds), since it is illegal, and anybody who is a bit familiar with the system of awarding US foreign assistance and bidding for American grants should know about this.

If the question of bidding were to be resolved in an easy way as it is imagined by many in Ukraine, perhaps, those 80 Ukrainian businesses which Yevhen Marchuk mentioned in his speech at the Ukrainian Parliament, would have been long since awarded the billion-dollar contracts in Iraq.

During the elections campaign in Ukraine, the US government funds will support the third sector, i.e. it will be spent on the training of political parties and observers, parallel counting of votes etc. - all those procedures to which the current Ukrainian leadership has become strongly immune and which can be entirely neutralized by applying a good measure of the administrative resource, preventive beatings of activists, not letting observers to polling stations and removing opposition candidates by court decision of the subservient judiciary.

Americans can, of course, take more aggressive steps. For example, assets some of Kuchma's lieutenants could be arrested as they are being made public at the Lazorenko hearing, or the elections results may not be recognized due to massive violations of the electoral law. Will such steps be taken? Most probably, not. Considering the significance of Ukraine for the US-led antiterrorist coalition, this seems to be a safe bet.

Finally, myth four, brewing among American government officials who deal with Ukraine, is about the effectiveness of US measures to secure the free and fair elections in Ukraine. This myth is a textbook case of mirror imaging.

Americans truly believe that if you keep on repeating something to a reasonable and certifiably sane person, then such person will be compelled to comprehend the message. In other words, if one repeatedly emphasizes the importance of free and fair elections to the Ukrainian authorities, then both President Kuchma and Medvedchuk will finally comprehend the importance of this issue and will do everything by the book.

In March of this year Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, visited Ukraine. Soon Stephen Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, will visit Ukraine, too. A whole series of other American delegations is expected to come to Kiev. They all attempt to drive a clear message to the Ukrainian leadership on the significance of the free and fair elections within the framework of bilateral relations.

Do all these message delivered by US officials make any impact on the Ukrainian leadership? Do Americans have any more compelling measures, than the friendly diplomatic suggestions?

Mr. Armitage's visit to Kiev last March helps to understand the influence of words. He brought two messages to the Ukrainian leadership: 1) no, no, no to any violations during the elections; 2) yes, yes, yes to Ukrainian troops in Iraq.

Even though Ambassador Pifer claims, that the main point of the Mr. Armitage's visit to Kiev were the issues of democracy, this is absolutely not evident while reviewing the official Ukrainian media, which had completely ignored the issues of democracy, leaving only the gratitude for Iraq.

Two message-approach absolutely does not work in the case of Ukraine, as well as those private conversations one-on-one with Kuchma about democracy.

Well, he is definitely not an American in his mindset nor he can be possibly instilled, all of a sudden and given his lifelong experience, any affection for free and fair elections. It is safe to assume, that during his meetings with American officials he only keeps up appearances by agreeing and consenting, yet in reality he cannot care less.

Private conversation is exactly the style of communications to which the Ukrainian authorities got accustomed: it is both pleasant and safe for them. They got praised for Iraq on one hand, and the public knows nothing about the democracy issues raised on the other hand. Pro-government media always interpret the contents of private meetings and messages by highlighting only what is best to the Ukrainian leadership.

As far as any more meaningful ways of influence are concerned, Ambassador Pifer stressed the importance for Ukraine of the NATO summit in Istanbul in June, where the Kiev's progress in conducting the free and fair elections will be supposedly discussed.

Firstly, due to the smart maneuvering of President Kuchma, the beginning of elections campaign has been postponed until the early July, therefore it is a mystery what progress the NATO countries are going to evaluate in June.

Secondly, the main focus of the summit will be the NATO official participation in peacekeeping operations in Iraq. More than just a lively discussion is expected there, so hardly any spot in the agenda will be left for any momentous discussions about Ukraine.

Undoubtedly, the United States will recognize any new president of Ukraine, no matter be it Yuschenko or Yanukovych. No penalty actions will follow, unlike some hot heads in Kiev want to imagine. However, if the massive violations do take place, as it happened in Donetsk last year, the so-called "Ukraine fatigue" phenomenon can be expected to swell in Washington.

The essence of this phenomenon lies in being disappointed by Ukraine and its lack of democratization progress and movement towards Europe. The "Ukraine fatigue" will directly effect the suspension of some economic issues, which are of particular interest for Kiev, namely the removal of Jackson-Vanick, recognition of the market-economy status for Ukraine, WTO accesion, allocating additional funds for the nuclear safety programs at the Rivne and Khmelnytsky nuclear power plants, securing contracts to rebuild Iraq. All these matters will be put down into the same long "box", where the Kolchuga affair has been collecting dust so far.

In 2004 the opposition in Ukraine faces the administrative resource alone. No matter what myths about America are created by the official pro-government media in Ukraine and, paraphrasing the popular saying, the West will not help this time. The West focuses on its own problems, and the Ukrainian opposition needs to rely only on its own strength to overcome the administrative resource.