Washington and London Want Their Questions Answered
The US State Department decided to make public knowledge the report of a US-UK experts team visiting Ukraine to investigate the alleged sale of a Kolchuga detection system to Iraq. The team worked October 13-20 and the report was presented to the Ukrainian government by US and British Ambassadors Carlos Pascual and Robert Brinkley. The team findings come down to a number of questions Washington and London still expect to be answered by Kyiv. Both ambassadors stressed that their countries remain dedicated to the strengthening of relations with Ukraine, considering it an important country (in the words of Mr. Pascual), as well as to furthering Ukrainian-NATO relationships. While presenting the report, British Ambassador Robert Brinkley stated that there were no deadlines for answers to any of the questions raised by the joint team of experts. He said that everybody is still waiting for the Ukrainians to supply the required documents at its convenience, and that all such documents would be most welcome. In fact, there was nothing new about his statement, except that the British envoy made it in response to numerous declarations by Ukrainian politicians best summed as everything has been checked, and we have nothing further to declare.
Ukraine’s international image can hardly benefit from the said report by the United States and Great Britain, especially considering that official Kyiv insisted on the investigation to prove it had clean hands. All this considered, the Ukrainian defense in the case, often nonaggressive and at times plainly incompetent, is hardly likely to win the international jury, even in view of certain dubious aspects about the stand taken by Washington and London.
The US-UK report has it that “the Government of Ukrainefailed to provide the team with satisfactory evidence that the transfer of a Kolchuga to Iraq could not or did not take place, the lack of full cooperation and transparency overall, particularly on third party transfer issues, the question of whether Ukraine transferred or is transferring Kolchugas to Iraq through a third country must remain open.” Further on the experts state that “Kolchuga has not been directly transferred to Iraq under openly declared contracts. However, covert or illegal arms transfers, particularly with the complicity of third parties, remain a credible possibility.”
The report reads that the Ukrainian government “provided documentation that purported to show that 72 of the 76 Kolchugas that the GOU [Government of Ukraine] admits to producing have been accounted for. GOU asserts that 4 Kolchuga are in the PRC, but the team was not given access to documents to confirm this. Ukrainian interlocutors stated that the End-User Clause had been modified at the PRC’s request. After the team’s departure, the GOU provided a copy of a clause precluding re- transfer without approval, which the GOU said was from the PRC contract. However, this clause was on an otherwise blank page, and its authenticity was impossible to judge without access to the full contract. The GOU did not explain the discrepancy between the written clause and the interview with Ukrainian experts who explicitly told the team that the clause had been modified.”
Another interesting excerpt: “Ukrspetseksport [Ukrainian state arms sales firm] refused to acknowledge Iraq’s interest through a Jordanian intermediary, in the Kolchuga system, though the point was acknowledged publicly and in writing by the SBU. Often answers to the questions posed, particularly those that touched on the role of senior Ukrainian leadership figures, were evasive.” Elsewhere the document reads that “The team was allowed to meet with many, but not all of the individuals requested. The Ukrainian side told the team that Leonid Derkach, former head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), and Yury Orshansky, former Honorary Consul to Iraq, were unavailable because they were traveling abroad during the time of the team’s visit.”
Viktor Medvedchuk, Head of the Presidential Administration, voiced official Kyiv’s response to the report a couple of weeks ago, stressing that “we will, of course, do our best to make this meeting possible” — meaning that the experts would be able to meet with Derkach. As for Orshansky, Mr. Medvedchuk said he was still in Iraq.
In other words, the US-UK report has it that the Ukrainian government must provide documentary proof, so the experts can be satisfied that Ukraine actually never sold a Kolchuga to Iraq, directly or through a third party, including documents attesting such sales to any countries, specifically PRC and Kolchuga deployment in China, and that Kyiv must arrange for the experts to meet with Derkach and Orshansky,
Ambassador Brinkley pointed out that Chinese information was necessary not for espionage but for ascertaining whether any Kolchugas were deployed in that country. The subject has not been raised with PRC. US Ambassador Pascual believes that raising the matter at the UN Security Council’s Committee 661 would make possible access to the required data in China and Russia. A copy of the report was sent to the committee. Mr. Pascual stressed that the UN experts must have the documents which the joint team never received in Ukraine. In other words, there is a smooth but noticeable shift in approach; previously, Washington said that the case did not have to be investigated by the United Nations, as requested by Ukraine.
Ambassador Pascual also emphasized that the United States did not intend to influence the situation within Ukraine in any way, and that the Ukrainian president would remain in office until the end of his term, adding that it is for the Ukrainians to decide who will be their president and how long, no matter what the Americans might say or do. Also, he stated that revising US-Ukrainian relations might not have a negative effect on Ukraine, although there were many countries with which the United States has maintained steady lower-level relationships. As for a double check in the Kolchuga case, often referred to by Kyiv, the whole thing looked like another promotional campaign, said the US ambassador, rather than a sincere desire to receive convincing answers to the stated questions.
Interfax Ukraine quotes NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson as telling Ukrainian journalists that their country would remain under constant pressure until all the questions were answered. In the next couple of weeks, he added, the Ukrainian government would realize that the problem would not vanish by itself and that the importance of such information would increase. Lord Robertson described the situation as a cloud over Ukraine’s relationships with NATO. Volodymyr Khandohy, head of the Ukrainian mission to the UN, does not think that such “pressuring methods” will help under the circumstances: “If NATO wants to take part in clarifying the situation, we will be prepared to consider the possibility.”
“Someone is keeping the issue in the limelight because it serves someone’s benefit,” Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s Press Service Chief Serhiy Borodenko told journalists, when asked to comment on the Kolchuga situation. He assured that the US and British experts had been provided with “complete information, even that which was classified to an extent.” The Ukrainian diplomat noted that it would not do making a mountain out of molehill and that all comments on the Kolchuga issue would never add anything new: “All information is available to the experts and the UN Security Council.” Mr. Borodenko quoted President Leonid Kuchma as saying, visiting Austria, that Ukraine keeps its doors open for experts from other countries. Committee 661 is considering US accusations against Ukraine, so it is best to wait to hear their decision, he said.
Despite all this, questions remain. Why is no one is asking Moscow and Beijing about Kolchugas? Why should they use the old Soviet face-saving technique? Why did they not say yes or now, there and then? Why should anyone avoid meeting with the US-UK experts? If they did it was for some reason — at least such is the impression of Washington and London.
INCIDENTALLY
The Foreign Ministry of the PRC ruled out any possibility of China’s involvement with the alleged Ukrainian sales of Kolchugas to Iraq, reports Interfax Ukraine.
Kung Tsuang, Press Secretary of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at a briefing last Tuesday that there was no question of Chinese supplies of any radar systems to Iraq, and that the Chinese government was strictly observing the UN sanctions against that country.
