You're reading: In US, it’s a game of good cop, bad cop with Ukraine

 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ukraine's officials are getting the good cop, bad cop treatment from the U.S.  Congress is playing the bad cop with President Viktor Yanukovych and his entourage, threatening them with individual sanctions for pursuing what they say is a policy of selective justice against imprisoned former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

 In the executive branch, the U.S. State Department and others are playing the good cop role: Officials are still trying to engage and persuade Ukraine’s leaders that political prisoners, democracy and human rights are more important for the Western world than Yanukovych thinks.

In conversations with the Kyiv Post, State Department officials stress that sanctions will inevitably lead to Ukraine’s growing isolation and, therefore, are not on the U.S. agenda as long as Ukraine’s leaders return to the democratic path.

However, it appears that if Ukraine’s leaders keep moving in the wrong direction, the U.S. may put more bite to its bark. In the past year, Washington has sent clear messages to official Kyiv. To express their concern, many top officials — including U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Phil Gordon and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Thomas Melia – have made trips to Ukraine.

Melia alone has visited four times since 2010. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton furthermore has made several statements regarding Ukraine and sent messages to Tymoshenko, who has been incarcerated for more than a year after being convicted of abuse of office in signing a 2009 gas deal with Russia.

The latest Clinton letter came on Oct. 15. It called for Tymoshenko’s immediate release and assured continued U.S. support. The legislative branch in the U.S. also has made its position known in unambiguous language.  The Senate held two hearings on Ukraine this year.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois visited Ukraine this summer, and had a conversation with Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. Durbin is said to have left with the impression that action to release Tymoshenko was forthcoming.

But months went by and nothing changed. As the Oct. 28 parliamentary election neared, more human rights concerns were raised as it became evident that the election playing field is tilted and that pressure on the media is rising. Amid growing frustration in Washington, a Sept. 22 resolution was unanimously approved in the U.S. Senate, co-authored and pushed through by Durbin and Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahama. Another resolution is pending in the House of Representatives.

The Senate resolution, approved unanimously on Sept. 19, calls for an end to political persecutions and the immediate release of Tymoshenko. It also urges the U.S. government to consider visa sanctions against officials involved in her imprisonment and that of others regarded as political prisoners in the West. Ukraine’s government reacted sharply to the resolution, with the Foreign Ministry claiming that it “reflects the position of two of its authors known for their sympathies to the opposition.”

And despite all 100 members of the Senate voting for the resolution, high-ranking members of the ruling Party of Regions questioned its validity, infuriating some on Capitol Hill. The resolution pending in the House is even tougher. Authored by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, and chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, a government human rights watchdog, it addresses a broader range of issues, including election-related freedoms and other human rights.

 It calls on the government “to take immediate measures to reverse the current anti-democratic course.” It also calls for “denying United States visas to Ukrainian officials involved in serious human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, or corruption that undermines or injures democratic institutions in Ukraine, including officials responsible for and participating in the selective prosecution and persecution of political opponents.”

Former Deputy Prosecutor General Mykola Obikhod in July said the Smith resolution “is a direct result of the work of lobbyists.” Other Ukrainian officials, including Obikhod’s ex-colleague, First Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin, said in a recent open letter that the Senate resolution was influenced by Tymoshenko allies.

Jim Slattery, a former Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1995 who now works for Wiley Rein law firm, is on Tymoshenko’s case. Slattery has lobbied on behalf of Tymoshenko in Congress with former colleagues he describes as “friends of 20 years.” 

Slattery’s luxurious K Street office has many signs of his work for Tymoshenko: stacks of papers and folders on bookshelves labeled with her name. He points to another stack on his table. He says he has “an ongoing contract” to represent Tymoshenko, the ultimate goal of which is her release and political reconciliation in Ukraine. He will be coming to Ukraine later this year to talk to Yanukovych on the matter.

But others think the lobbyists are very limited in their ability to influence either U.S. policy or events in Ukraine.

Orest Deychakiwsky, a policy adviser at the Helsinki Commission who knows Ukraine well, says the influence of lobbyists is overstated in the case of the resolution on Ukraine. “They were helpful, they did lobby for it, but they can’t claim credit for it,” he says.

But their efforts help in the good cop, bad cop game that Washington is playing, and to keep Ukraine on the U.S. foreign policy agenda ahead of the Nov. 6 presidential elections in America.

If sanctions came, who would they be against? State Department officials merely say “we’re trying to identify the people who could potentially face sanctions.”

Such targets on that list are broadly defined as “those who are involved in political prosecutions.” But outside the State Department, certain names are an open secret. In particular, General Prosecutor Viktor Pshonka and his deputy Kuzmin are frequently named high on the list.

Some Ukrainians have already had trouble getting into America. Rinat Akhmetov, the nation’s richest man, has been in limbo for years as to whether or not he will be granted a visa, despite buying United Coal, the sixth-largest coking coal company in the U.S., for up to $1.4 billion in April 2009. There may be others, but these cases often come to light only if the visa-seeker makes an issue out of the troubles.

Sanctions do not appear to be imminent, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election.

When it comes to Ukraine, the U.S. tends to act with a broad bipartisan consensus. Proof of that is the fact that the tough resolutions on Ukraine, including the latest one on Tymoshenko, are traditionally passed with strong bipartisan support. Ukraine’s behavior is the biggest factor that drives U.S. foreign policy towards it. 

The next big test is how Ukraine holds the Oct. 28 parliamentary election. What is also closely monitored is political persecutions and the possible trial of Tymoshenko on murder charges. Prosecutors say she was behind the assassination in 1996 of Yevhen Shcherban, a businessman and politician from eastern Donetsk region.

Ultimately, the behavior of Ukraine’s officials may determine whether the good cop or the bad cop prevails in U.S. policy involving its increasingly wayward ally.

Kyiv Post editor Katya Gorchinskaya can be reached at [email protected].