The end of Maneuvering

Serhiy TOLSTOV, Director of the Political Analysis and International Research Institute:

The Iraqgate is, possibly, the last blow to the Ukrainian policy of maneuvering between the West and Russia. This is the factor that can determine the satellite status of the state (in all probability, as a result of taking a turn towards Russia). It is an extremely hard blow for Ukrainian arms export. In case such contacts of Ukrainian exporters are ‘detected’, the country is clearly going to become quite an unattractive supplier for the international markets, due to the fact that many armaments buyers prefer observing maximum secrecy possible for such dealings. Besides, destroying the country’s image and pressure from the West put Ukrainian supporters of the European and Euro-Atlantic integration in an awkward situation. The pressure is continuing, without any concrete interpretation of its goal being given, which makes one think of the following possibility: on somebody’s whim sanctions can be applied to Ukraine that have strong resemblance to the USA and NATO actions in Yugoslavia. Right up to failure of the Rambouillet conference few had believed the USA would bomb Belgrade. Incidentally, such considerations inevitably prompt military and political approaches to Russia.

As for the reaction to the present crisis, it is clear that what is appropriate first of all are actions whose legality would be doubted. That includes appealing to international law, attempting to reinforce inner stability, etc. But most likely one should give up hope for economic growth.

Yevhen KAMINSKY, Head of World Economy and International Relationships Institute Department:

I do not want to believe that the Kolchuha radar systems really got to Iraq in some roundabout way. For, if this proves to be true, we are awaiting the worst scenario: Ukraine will get into the list of cast-off countries. But considering the fact that the Kolchuhas were provided to states that can hardly be called stable and all the less democratic, one shouldn’t rule out the probability of such a scenario. If the Kolchuha got to Iraq through Ethiopia or some other country, our state might face very serious accusations. But if it did not happen, and in response to Tony Blair’s file, Ukraine is able to provide the Kuchma’s file, which would prove that Ukraine has nothing to do with the Kolchuha supplies to Iraq, the situation will develop in another way. I think the current situation with Ukraine indicates that the forces keep on shouting about the absence of democracy, rights and freedom of journalists, etc. in Ukraine, can no longer be stopped in the usual way. Very serious systems of changes are to be conducted inside the state so that our country will not suffer. On August 24 the president spoke sufficiently about it. I mean the gradual change to a parliamentary republic. (By the way, I have no notion of what a presidential and parliamentary republic is. The UN contains 192 states, and none of them is called such, there being either parliamentary or presidential countries.) Until recently we’ve been talking of a gradual course of transformation, but now it is to be speeded up — simultaneously with a democratic process within the country and together with accelerating civil society formation. For in our country civic society now means, in fact, various opposition movements or creating institutes, centers, etc., that receive grants from abroad. But the notion is really determined as private organizations created at the expense of Ukrainian citizens for the sake of reaching concrete democratic goals, which we certainly do not have in our state. And finally, only starting up the real process of cooperative relationships between the state and society, beginning a constructive dialog could give the West an argument to change its present aggressive position towards Ukraine.

Oleksandr SUSHKO, Director of Peace, Conversion, and Foreign Politics Center of Ukraine:

In respect to the strategic concern of Ukraine it is important to what extent its government have violated the rules of fair play which will affect the international status of Ukraine. Both American experts and the Ukrainian side have already acknowledged the discreditable conversation between the president and late chairman of the company ‘Ukrspetsexport’. The fact itself is known not to have caused the introduction of international sanctions against Ukraine. But when it is about the state trying to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic zone, even the price of moral sanctions will be high.

Both Iraq and Ukraine are now declaring maximum openness and inviting foreign experts, which is a belated instrument to use. Being ready for real openness is an act of despair rather than a natural feature of the two states. But let’s not dramatize, since nothing has really changed. Ukraine has never been and still is not invited to NATO, nor has it been and still is not allowed to participate in the process of the EU expansion. Officially it will remain all the same, with only the distance extended, so that it will take much more effort and time to handle in future.

We will face material changes only in the eastern direction, which is usual for situations like this. An easier surrender of Ukraine in most strategic disputes with Russia is awaited in the next future. First of all, that concerns yielding gas and transport mains under the pretense of a consortium of Russia’s conditions. Changing Kyiv’s position as for the EurAsES is also possible.

Boris PARAKHONSKY, Ph.D. in Philosophy:

The USA is truly the world leader whose opinion is heeded by many countries in the Western world. Unquestionably not on all issues — it is no secret that opinions regarding America’s operations in Iraq oscillate. But the fate of Ukraine now depends on the position of the United States: if the US begins to reconsider its policy in relation to our country, we can expect that other countries will follow their lead.

And in turn, there is a threat that sanctions may be applied against Ukraine. They have already been introduced by the US in its cessation of a part of their assistance. If the situation develops further, then other countries and international institutions may follow suit. If there was to be a certainty of the truth of the USA’s position, limitations in relations with Ukraine will appear, and they may even hold back from negotiations. A regime of relative international isolation, not overly favorable for Ukraine, would appear in the world. It would be worst of all if it comes from institutions as important as NATO, the EU, or even Poland.

Therefore it is necessary now for us to react immediately and be consistent in our proclamations. From the beginning we must determine if there is any truth in Melnychenko’s tapes or not. We have always denied this, but not categorically, and certain officials concede that such conversations could have taken place. Proceeding from there, a fixed line of behavior must be drawn up. If you are talking about the involvement of Ukraine in the sale of weapons in defiance of sanctions, then it is clear that on an official level Ukraine is not involved. Most likely if something of the kind did take place, then it was on the level of illegal mechanisms and took place without the knowledge of the upper leadership. If the fact of the illegal sales was somehow admitted, then it should be followed by an immediate apology, the passing of measures to avoid a repeat, and an expression of our preparedness for sanction, noting, however, that on an official level in Ukraine such things do not occur. If in fact the sale of the Kolchuha system did not take place, then the necessary arguments and evidence to prove the fact should be found. Unquestionably, we are not in a position where we can accuse everyone of being wrong. We are not strong enough to be aggressive. We need to tolerantly show the world that we are not involved in this.

As for the question as to how much the current scandal is connected with the actions of the opposition, I consider the links to be minimal. I think that if the fact had been discovered in the spring, then someone would have seen in it a link to the elections. If they had taken place in the summer — to the formation of a Parliamentary majority. It seems to me that the time was determined by the peculiarities of the work of the mechanisms of American judicial and expert organs. I do not think that the US leadership has some kind of hidden motive because this was the result of expert investigation of the American justice, which, as we know, is an independent institute, and is able even to impeach their president.

Andriy YERMOLAEV, Director of the Sofia Center for Social Research:

In the emerging of the Iraqgate scandal, there are several levels. The first is the global one, where, unfortunately, Ukraine is present as the object of influences. This is a large geopolitical game, which does not depend on Ukraine’s desires. I want to stress one moment — Ukraine has not been an independent geopolitical subject for the 11 years of its independence. This is a problem of the Ukrainian political elite, of the authorities who have probably always confused diplomacy with their international policy, while the interests of the authorities lay with the nation’s resources. This led to the fact that they don’t know what interests they need to promote, or by which rules the geopolitical games develop and what needs to be stood up for. Therefore they put their foot in it in the most diverse areas, including the arms market. Was the Kolchuha scandal really news for us? And not long ago the situation with Macedonia with the accusations of the exporting of nuclear technology? Not to mention the various accusations against Ukraine concerning the sale of ordinary weaponry. All of these components are characteristic of the level of geopolitical intelligence of our elite.

It is advantageous for the US to play the card of Ukraine and a number of other countries in order to demonstrate to the rest of the world, and above all to Europe, that there is some agreement between petty regimes which, for mercenary interests, support so-called terrorist regimes in order to demonstrate the necessity of carrying out an operation against Iraq. This version is obvious, many people are saying it and, in my opinion, not without foundation.

There is another level, linked with the moral and political dimension of the situation. Unfortunately our politicians of the representative and presidential branches are so convulsively making the excuse that this could never happen they are not looking just funny, but absurd. This is because, first, at the level of the elite there is a lack of any kind of consensus on the position of the authorities, and second, the authorities don’t even trust themselves because each of their representatives, voluntarily or not, surmises that it is indeed possible. And if this is allowed in principle (even on the internal political level), the authorities are capable of violating the rules of the game, which are acknowledged by the international community, then other violations can be assumed. That is, the moral and political character of the authorities is undermined and I do not see the possibility of it being restored. This does not mean that the West, Russia, or any other group of influence will try to bring down the current authorities. That is not the point. The point is that irrespective of the outcome of the geopolitical games, the current authorities have been given a moral sentence reading, “In the future we will not work with you. If able to revive yourselves politically — revive yourselves, but the verdict will remain.”

The third aspect is the internal events in Ukraine, where the providers of the scandal are located. These are forces taking advantage of the fact that the authorities are found in such dirt. I would be wary of saying that these forces were compelled, like puppets on a string, because it’s not that simple. I can assume only one thing — that there are two components in the domestic political dimension. One is that it is a game of the special services. Here there is a specific aspect to the Ukrainian special services different from those of Russia or the West. Here both acting and retired figures are involved. It is not by chance that in the last 2 years former ‘specialists’ have appeared in important positions in the opposition parties — I am thinking of Hryhory Omelchenko, Oleksandr Zhyr, et. al. I don’t consider this to be accidental. They are the organizers and conductors of an information campaign. The second component is their own political ‘providers’. That is those who through chance, circumstances, or thanks to their positions use these situations. I am against the idea that the leading politicians of the opposition forces are some kind of agents. But that these politicians can allow themselves to coordinate actions with external consultants and between themselves and actively use the products of the emerging scandal is evident. The emerging informational surge was the result of those failures and miscalculations with which the opposition has run into in the last two weeks.

Considering that the conductors of the arms scandal are external management, I doubt that this external management is interested in a revolution in Ukraine and in the forced change of power. I think that it is simpler and at the same time more tragic. Publicly a vote of no confidence has been marked in the current political elite who have monopolized the executive branches of power. If this part of the political elite is able to even partially demonstrate their readiness to divide power, to reform themselves, they will find a real chance of quietly and painlessly lasting their legitimate term and leaving the political arena in 2004. If this part of the elite demonstrate their readiness to fight, however, to take a tough and aggressive position, then I would not rule out the forceful variant about which people are starting to talk — a political blockade, manifold sanctions, and direct pressure on the Ukrainian authorities.