Are We Running Ahead of the Train Or Jumping in the Caboose?

How should Ukraine act in the wake of what happened on September 11? Experts do not doubt the correctness of the National Security and Defense Council decision to allow US military and cargo aircraft passage over Ukraine as part of any retaliatory mission. Other issues are also on the agenda: the prospects, chances, and perils connected with the international campaign against terrorism. How should Ukraine pursue its national interests under the circumstances? The Editors hope that this round table, attended by noted domestic experts on national security and international relations is a step toward such a discussion and in finding answers to these complicated questions. Larysa Ivshyna will continue as a most active participant in the discussion and welcomes readers and experts to share their views.

WHERE DO WE STEP IN?

Larysa IVSHYNA, The Day:

What new situations are arising in Ukraine now that we are part of the antiterrorist coalition? Is the world geopolitical picture changing? Or could it mean, among other things, that Ukraine can actually discuss joining NATO? We are acting in the same direction as the NATO countries, but we do not have such security guarantees.

Borys ANDRESIUK, Chairman, Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security and Defense:

There are two aspects to the NSDC decision allowing US overflights. The first is legal. Precisely how legitimate is this decision? Strictly speaking, it fully conforms to the Ukrainian legal framework. On February 22, Ukrainian enacted the law regulating the admission of foreign military forces to our nation’s territory. We have applied it on more than one occasion — I am referring to joint military exercises. And this decision also clearly falls under this law. There is, however, a provision of the law that could raise many questions. Article 1 reads that foreign military units are those organized on a permanent or temporary basis, belong to a given foreign country’s ground forces, navy, air force, or special troops, are equipped with light and heavy armaments, and covered by the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Verkhovna Rada ratified the treaty on July 1, 1992, and it clearly designates the five armed services under its jurisdiction: tanks, artillery of 100 millimeters and over, warplanes, and helicopters. The US statement requesting air passage specifies: nonstop flights of combat and cargo aircraft — and precisely this type of aircraft is not covered by the treaty. The president met with parliamentary group and fraction leaders. Most did not oppose the NSDC decision, except Socialist Nikolayenko who said he had nothing against the decision personally, but that his faction would announce its position the next day.

The political aspect is that by taking this practical step Ukraine has confirmed before the international community its readiness to fully support the antiterrorist coalition. At ten a.m. September 10, I met Mr. Dunkel, deputy head of the NATO training center at Garmisch [Germany]. He concentrated on the kind of assistance they expected from Ukraine: exchange of intelligence concerning terrorist groups operating in and outside Ukraine.

All the Western countries are quickly revising their military and national security doctrines. This is also a very important issue in Ukraine. Last spring, President Kuchma instructed the Institute of Strategic Studies and NSDC to work out a new basic concept of our national defense doctrine. The document is practically ready but is still to be considered by the NSDC. I think this is a good thing, because all such doctrines must be reconsidered under the circumstances. Recent events show that terrorist groups are the greatest threat to all countries. Our committee has finished preliminary work on the 2002 budget bill; we made sure it has enough allocations for antiterrorist programs. Our SBU [secret police] has an antiterrorist center. The cabinet proposes an allocation of UAH 10 million to pay for it in 2002. However, it is clear that this will not be enough to effectively combat terrorism.

I don’t think that Ukraine’s joining the antiterrorist coalition will have any negative consequences. On the contrary, it is evidence that we are a democratic civilized country. It means that other countries will reckon with us and will have more confidence in Ukraine.

Oleksandr HONCHARENKO, President, Center for International Security and Strategic Studies:

All attempts to establish an antiterrorist crisis management center within the CIS have failed, and Ukraine found itself in an embarrassing situation, since it had joined that center. We’ve heard voices saying that the CIS countries will never allow US aircraft passage. The obvious inference is that we have to think twice before joining any crisis management centers. Ukraine is not a member of any CIS military pacts, so the question is why Ukraine should be a member of that center. And one more question is what consequences all these steps will have for Ukraine, specifically, impact on Ukrainian-US-NATO and Ukrainian-Russian relationships. However, I’d rather broach a broader subject. Ukraine agreed to US overflights almost a week after others did. We could have done this earlier. Who would have benefited, had Ukraine denied passage? Whose interests would have been served? The country would have without question lost face considering that Russia allowed passage. We couldn’t have acted otherwise, not under the circumstances.

PRAGMATISM OR POLITICAL PILLAGE?

Mykhailo HONCHAR, President, Strategy-1 Foundation:

There are three scenarios in any situation, particularly in a crisis one: actions to stay ahead of events, passive actions, and simply siting and doing nothing. Ukraine did not select the option of staying ahead of events in the situation after September 11.

Larysa IVSHYNA:

Staying ahead of events?

M. H.:

Under the circumstances, Ukraine could have adopted this scenario by using its foreign policy tools, specifically GUUAM: we could have shown initiative and held consultations within that format for the GUUAM countries to jointly allow US aircraft passage from Europe to Central Asia. It was very easy to anticipate that the Americans would want to use forces deployed in Europe and that they would shortly request passage clearance from Slovakia, Hungary, and Ukraine. This is precisely what confirms the relevance of such US military logic. These events were easy to forecast and an appropriate vehicle could have been set in motion. This would be getting in front of events, and it would have certainly provided Ukraine with serious political dividends in terms of partnership with the US and Ukrainian-NATO relations. But this didn’t happen, and there’s no use crying over spilt milk. After all, we did make our contribution with the NSDC resolution of September 24.

Ukraine should now decide how to best pursue its national interests as well as determine its strategy and conduct in the situation. There are a number of other aspects, particularly what the United States will expect from Ukraine in terms of assistance. It won’t be much, because there is little America can’t provide itself.

Larysa IVSHYNA:

This is a test of strategic partnership.

M. H.:

So far Ukraine is maintaining it. Since our priorities have been defined as both European integration and Atlantic integration, I don’t see any reason to act in any other fashion that could threaten our being isolated from how the antiterrorist operation unfolds. In addition the Caspian region is one of our highest priorities in terms of diversifying our sources of oil. It is mainly American companies that are active there, companies that feel more secure when US armed forces are present in the region. Projects to develop oil extraction in the Caspian area will intensify. Increased oil extraction is in Ukraine’s interest.

It is important that the result of the actions by the states that will take part in the antiterrorist coalition influence how the US will work out its political line concerning its further relations with these states. Remember Ukraine’s behavior in 1999 at the beginning of the American operation in the Balkans. As a result we did not spoil our relationships with anybody, but we also failed to reap the serious political dividends that we could have got.

Larysa IVSHYNA:

Concerning actions to stay ahead of events, I must say that I like the term. But I will not agree with the notion that Ukraine just sat on its hands. It is worth recalling that immediately after the terrorist act, it was on Ukraine’s initiative and in the office of our UN mission that the UN Security Council meeting, which condemned terror, was held.

Ihor SEMYVOLOS, Executive Director, Center for Research on the Near East:

In this case Ukraine isn’t playing like a political marauder like many states that are taking advantage of the situation to solve their own narrow political problems. It is very positive.

Larysa IVSHYNA:

It’s true that we haven’t had time to enjoy all the benefits of democracy, considering that we joined the process late — globalization, the open society, democratic norms, and political correctness. But now we see that the world is on the verge of turning back. There is a temptation of using the terrorist attack on America to halt the processes of democracy. The world is getting more under control and harsher. At the same time, the alignment of forces could change so that we will find ourselves sitting on the fence. Do you think this threat really exists and is Ukraine prepared for such quick rethinking?

Borys ANDRESIUK:

Ukraine is not prepared to take advantage of the situation, and I think that it won’t, because we simply have no right to do so. Why? Because doing so backfires on countries like Ukraine that are just embarking on democracy.

Serhiy PYROZHKOV, Director, National Institute for Problems of International Security of the NSDC:

I think that democracy and terrorism are irreconcilable notions. Combating terrorism requires imposing limitations on democracy. If we demonstrate active cooperation along these lines we’ll move away from the values we proclaimed in our Act of Independence. Thus developing democracy has to be our main strategic objective, and we must combat terrorism as far as possible. Ideologically we are all for this struggle, but we must consider specific acts and how to go about them, so that we don’t come up with decade long projects, but with something specific and effective, so we don’t find ourselves running ahead of the locomotive.

Larysa IVSHYNA:

We organized this discussion not only in order to monitor the situation but in order to see in what directions future discussions will go. It is already time to create for thoughtful readers the image of another Ukraine: that Ukrainians need to like themselves a little better. I think that today’s discussion was a step in precisely this direction.