Iraq War and Ukraine: Our Role and Mission

Outwardly there is no reason to refer Ukraine to the group of countries demanding Iraq’s immediate disarmament and actually taking part in the war. The State Department insists that the coalition numbers more than 44 countries, including 30 openly stating their involvement in the hostilities (Australia, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Poland...) and over 15 cooperating with the coalition and providing defense forces in case Saddam Hussein uses weapons of mass destruction, reads the US Embassy’s press release received by The Day. The second category is not listed and the US side explains it by requests of the governments concerned. The State Department’s recent declarations and one President Bush’s recent addresses make it possible to assume that Ukraine is among those 15 countries.

Official Kyiv has made it perfectly clear that the dispatch of the radiological, chemical, and biological warfare defense battalion to Kuwait cannot be considered an indication of Ukraine’s involvement in the military operation against Iraq. It was stressed on more than one occasion that the battalion would be sent to the Persian Gulf to protect the civilian population, not to take part in any combat missions. On the other hand, the deployment of the Ukrainian battalion and the tasks assigned it are in full conformity with the US concept of coalition membership. “Czech, Slovak, Polish, and Romanian forces, soon to be joined by Ukrainian and Bulgarian forces, are forward deployed in the region, prepared to respond in the event of any attack of weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the region,” President Bush said on Wednesday, March 26 [addressing U.S. troops and their families at MacDill Air Force Base, near Tampa, Florida]. From this it follows, first, that the US government regards Ukraine as a coalition member, and, second, that the Ukrainian battalion could participate in decontamination procedures not only in Kuwait. Both points contradict the official Ukrainian stand and the resolution passed by Verkhovna Rada. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoly Zlenko, asked by journalists March 27 to comment on Bush’s address, declared: “We bear in mind the assessment by the American side of our position and actions in conjunction with the Iraqi crisis, but regard it exclusively as the US view on the place of Ukraine in the efforts of the international community to resolve the current crisis situation.” He stressed that the Ukrainian battalion was on a purely humanitarian mission and that was obligated to carry out missions only on the territory of Kuwait.

Hard as it has tried, The Day could not receive an official answer to the question of whether Ukraine was among the countries requesting anonymity. Another logical question is, Why should official Kyiv not openly declare its support of the US military effort in Iraq? Perhaps the main reason is the population’s negative attitude toward the war and the possibility of charges of inconsistency, followed by other uncomfortable questions. Most people in Ukraine regard the anti-Iraqi coalition’s efforts as an act of aggression against a sovereign country. Ukraine’s participation in that coalition would mean that the regime disregards public opinion. Even now Ukraine emphasizes the need to peacefully settle the Iraqi crisis. Coalition membership would contradict to this stand. After all, Kyiv recently passed through the complicated Kolchuga phase in its relationship with Washington, so declaring coalition membership would only add fuel to the fire.

On March 28 the question of whether Ukraine is a member of the anti-Iraqi coalition was aggravated almost to the point of the unforgivable. United States Ambassador to Ukraine Carlos Pascual said in clear and no uncertain terms that the Ukrainian authorities “told us they wanted to be considered part of the coalition. This does mean Ukraine should play a military role; it is performing a protective function.” Interfax-Ukraine also quotes Ambassador Pascual as saying, “We have consulted with the Ukrainian authorities on this issue, and we are pleased that they are ready to say that the Kuwait-based CBR battalion is Ukraine’s contribution to the coalition.”

Volodymyr Horbulin, chief of Ukraine’s National Center for Euro-Atlantic Integration, also said at the same briefing that in his opinion President Bush “was not very precise” when he named the anti-Saddam coalition member states. As to the possible participation of the Ukrainian CBR battalion in protecting civilians in Kuwait, Mr. Horbulin said that “our battalion can only take part in protecting the Kuwaiti population. There were no other suggestions, at least on the official level. This is a very clear position.” According to Mr. Horbulin, the battalion cannot be deployed for some other purpose on some other country’s territory. He thinks that sending the battalion to Kuwait was a correct decision made by the National Security Council and approved by Verkhovna Rada.

Incidentally, Horbulin took exception to the notion that the decision to send the battalion was a part of measures aimed at improving relations between Ukraine and the United States. However, Mr. Horbulin said, “I would not spurn the political moment, the moment of improved US-Ukrainian relations.” Mr. Horbulin advises no one speculate now about the battalion’s postwar situation because “it was planned to finish the war very soon; there was a concept of rapid domination. Now we see that things are going differently.” Moreover, there must be requests from other countries and Verkhovna Rada decisions.

Since the battalion deployment issue headed for a tough parliamentary vote, it was emphasized that the unit would be carrying out peaceful missions only (the protection of Kuwaiti civilians) and there was no question of being engaged in military operations. Mr. Horbulin also said that he was surprised at the suggestion of some people’s deputies that we should wait for the weapons of mass destruction to be used.

It is logical to assume that the different views of Ukraine’s role and place expressed by this country and the United States can be partially explained by Ambassador Pascual’s statement that Ukraine “stands rather high chances to participate in the [postwar] reconstruction efforts.” The initial phase of this rehabilitation will be funded by the United States, the ambassador said. Although the ambassador admitted the leading role of US companies, he noted that “Ukraine will undoubtedly have very serious technical opportunities.” That Ukraine can and wants to take part in Iraq’s reconstruction was also noted by President Leonid Kuchma at a press conference. Mr. Horbulin said on Friday that no specific discussions had yet been held on this matter. Yet, as he put it, Ukraine has done very much in Iraq: it helped build factories and transport infrastructure and produce oil prospecting and extraction equipment. It could do this again.

Well before the anti-Saddam military operation, the United States raised doubts about the likely participation of French and German companies in the reconstruction of Iraq.

It is also clear why the Ukrainian government insists that Ukraine is not a part of any anti-Iraq coalition: it is simply bowing to anti-war public opinion. In addition, Ukraine, while consistently proclaiming its course toward European integration, is naturally wary of certain problems that could emerge in its relations with the leading European countries. This would entail substantial risks, the more so that Kyiv never received any compensation (for example, in the shape of serious contracts with Bosnia, Serbia, or Kosovo) for the losses incurred due to the strict anti-Yugoslav sanctions and aerial bombardments of Yugoslavia in 1999.

It seems that the clear and explicit answers Ambassador of the United States to Ukraine Carlos Pascual gave to the questions of The Day and information agencies shed light on not only America’s arguments but also Ukraine’s prospects from Washington’s perspective. Too bad that so far Kyiv proved unable to explain nearly as clearly what Ukraine’s true national interests are at the moment and how they can be protected. At least, then there would be no “misunderstandings.”

“What, in your view, is the reason for the differences between Kyiv and Washington’s evaluation of Ukraine’s participation in the anti-Iraq coalition? Is it about different terminology or something else?”

“I haven’t seen any representative of the Ukrainian government or Presidential Administration deny that Ukraine has stated that it wants to be a part of this coalition. I have seen a misunderstanding, where Minister Zlenko was asked a question regarding the operations of the Ukrainian battalion in Kuwait and whether it would operate more broadly in the region. But beyond that, we have seen information on the part of the Foreign Ministry and Presidential Administration that Ukraine considers itself part of the coalition.

“All I can tell you is that before Ukraine was named as part of the coalition we consulted with the Ukrainian authorities. Both the Presidential Administration and Foreign Ministry confirmed that they want to be considered part of the coalition. This was their choice to be named as part of the coalition. Since that time it has been reconfirmed to me by representatives of the Presidential Administration. The choice of whether the country is in the coalition is up to that country, not the United States. If there is confusion on the Ukrainian side, I cannot explain why that might be. I can only say that we have made it very clear that this is Ukraine’s choice and that Ukrainian authorities empowered to speak on behalf of their country, the Presidential Administration and Foreign Ministry, have reaffirmed to us that it’s their choice to be considered part of the coalition.

“To what extent is the fact that Ukraine in the US view is member of the coalition connected to opportunities for its participation in Iraq’s reconstruction, the US support for its entering WTO and other organizations?”

“Concerning reconstruction activities, as I explained yesterday (March 28 — Ed.), we anticipate that there will be several phases. The current stage is being financed by the United States. As a result of that, the primary contracts will go to American companies. We have used our tradition and the regulations that allow us to extend subcontracts to non-American companies. And priority will go to companies from countries that are our coalition partners. I anticipate that in the future after an interim authority is formed in Iraq, there will be other reconstruction activities that are financed by those authorities using Iraq’s own resources. I can’t say at this point what the procedures might be for contracting.

“What I can assure you is that there is a strong interest on part of the United States to continue to work with Ukraine on its accession to WTO, because it is good for both of us. It means that Ukraine will adopt international standards, and it will help it get into the foreign markets. And our interest in this is not linked to the battalion.”

“Was there any agreement between Ukraine and the US on making public Ukraine’s participation in the coalition?”

“We specifically consulted with the Ukrainian authorities on whether they could be mentioned in President Bush’s speech before this was done. We were very explicit about the context of his speech, we specifically asked whether Ukraine would be willing to be cited as a coalition partner, and Ukraine positively responded and said, “Yes. We want to be named as a coalition partner.” This was reaffirmed here in Kyiv and also by the Ukrainian Embassy to the State Department in Washington.

“I want to be clear: we are not trying to pressure Ukraine to make any particular statement. We have extended to Ukraine the same opportunities that we have to other countries, which is whether they would like to be cited as a coalition partner. Obviously, we ask the countries, but it’s their choice.”

“Can we consider that the Kolchuga issue closed?”

“I’ll give you the same answer to this: Ukraine and the United States are not going to agree on the Kolchuga issue. But it is important to draw lesson from this. We believe that the key area where we can focus some of these lessons is on strengthening Ukraine’s export control system. We discussed this with Ukraine’s officials; I had an opportunity to discuss this with President Kuchma, and he said he agrees with that approach.”

COMMENT

Markiyan LUBKIVSKY, official spokesman of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“The media have been carrying comments that suggest, quoting certain persons, a free interpretation of whether or not Ukraine is member of the anti-Iraq coalition. There can be different interpretations of the Verkhovna Rada decision to meet Kuwait’s request about sending the Ukrainian battalion.

“Yet, we can unequivocally state that the Ukrainian CBR battalion is stationed on the territory of Kuwait, a friendly state, in compliance with an agreement signed between Ukraine and the State of Kuwait. This document clearly defines the legal status of our contingent as well as the purpose and the conditions of its deployment.

“There is no question of Ukraine engaging in hostilities in Iraq.

“Ukraine remains bound by its commitments undertaken in connection with the UN Charter.”