NEWS ANALYSIS: Is Ukraine to be secure? (01/17/93)

NEWS ANALYSIS

Is Ukraine to be secure?

by Eugene M. Iwanciw
UNA Washington Office

WASHINGTON - In the coming months the Parliament of Ukraine will make perhaps the most important decision of its existence: whether to ratify the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the treaties, Ukraine would be required to dismantle the 176 strategic nuclear missiles located in Ukraine and would be prohibited from ever developing or deploying any nuclear weapons. That decision could determine the very existence of Ukraine as an independent, sovereign nation.

It must be understood that Ukraine would not be reducing its nuclear weapons, but eliminating them. Under START I and START II, Russia, Ukraine's neighbor and historic adversary, would retain 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads. Ukraine would retain ambiguous security guarantees from the United States. The Ukrainian Parliament should ask: Is this adequate?

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) does not think so. In a January 6 editorial, the WSJ stated: "some Russian parliamentarians want to rebuild the Russian empire, and how much easier that would be if the two largest former Soviet republics on their borders had been forced to disarm." It went on to say that "there is no assurance that the region will be more stable if all the nuclear capabilities lie in Russian hands," but "quite the contrary seems more likely." The newspaper also took the U.S. to task by stating: "closed out of significant negotiations, Ukraine has been treated in the START talks as a satellite of Russia."

In a January 12 commentary in The Washington Times (see page 6), Frank Gaffney writes that "Ukraine is one of the most important countries of the post-Cold War Europe," and that "the time has come to challenge the assumption that U.S. and Western interests will necessarily be best served by insisting that Ukraine turn over all remaining, longer-range nuclear weapons to Russia." He also pointed out that United States policy toward Ukraine has not changed since the famous August 1, 1991 speech in Kyyiv, in which President George Bush "questioned the sanity of Ukrainians who yearned for independence from Moscow and strenuously urged that Ukraine give up its nationalistic aspirations and remain part of the Soviet Union."

But, while some in the media understand Ukraine's legitimate needs for national security guarantees, many do not. In a January 11 editorial The New York Times wrote: "Kiev is also seeking a U.S. security guarantee against Russia. But Washington would be foolish to offer one. That would needlessly affront Russian nationalists, already smoldering about Moscow's diminished stature." In other words, Ukraine's security is less important than affronting Russian nationalists.

While what is written in the American press is important, it is the position of the U.S. government that is vital. Last week, as a U.S. State Department spokesman was officially telling the press that "the United States has not rejected Ukrainian demands," other officials were quietly telling a different story to the press. According to The Washington Post of January 7, a senior U.S. official said: "We're not going to bargain for their vote. We're not going to bid up the price." The Washington Times of January 8 reported that a senior State Department official, after talks with the delegation headed by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys Tarasiuk said: "It's time for them - it's more than time for them to ratify these things." It was State Department officials who prompted The New York Times to write the above-mentioned editorial.

These are the same administration officials who wrote President Bush's Kyyiv speech and were quoted in the October 27, 1991, issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer as saying "we have no intention of recognizing them (Ukraine). We just won't do it. Just because a state is peeling off from the Soviet Union doesn't mean it has an automatic call on our help." Even after Ukrainian independence, these officials persisted in negatively portraying Ukraine to correspondents. On April 24, 1992, Reuters reported that an unidentified administration official, talking about economic assistance to Ukraine, stated "we're not going to throw money down a rat hole, and until they (the Ukrainians) make the tough choices Russia has made, they're a rat hole."

Ukraine must understand that its security cannot be dependent on the good will of others, but on its own resources. At this time, one of those resources is the nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine. It is only because of these weapons that Ukraine has received any attention from the United States during the past year. Recently, Denny Miller, a former aide to the late Sen. Henry Jackson, told me that if Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons, it will cease to exist in the eyes of the United States. Even with nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the United States orchestrated an international aid package of $24 billion for Russia with almost no assistance for Ukraine and the other 13 former Soviet republics. Many in the U.S. government have just not accepted the break-up of the Russian empire.

Ukraine's security does not lie with U.S. Sens. Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar who are, understandably, promoting what they perceive to be U.S. interests. During the Tarasiuk visit, Don Rothberg, a correspondent with Associated Press, asked me: "What happened to Sen. Lugar? Wasn't he once a friend of Ukraine?" While Mr. Rothberg sees that Sen. Lugar is not defending Ukraine's interest, that fact is not as obvious to many in Ukraine.

The solution to Ukraine's security requirements is not the suggestion The New York Times offered: "one solution is eventually to develop a new regional arrangement - a collective security pact that involves Europe as well as Russia and the U.S." That is just not adequate! First, the security arrangement is needed before and not after the ratification of the treaties. Once they are ratified, Ukraine loses its bargaining position! Secondly, to involve Russia in guaranteeing the security of Ukraine is like asking the fox to guarantee the security of the chickens. In 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky asked Russia to guarantee Ukrainian security. It took 347 years for Ukraine to regain independence.

Perhaps Ukraine should look to the solution pursued by another country whose very existence is also threatened - Israel. A day does not pass that Israel does not let the world know that some of its neighbors are only too willing to eliminate Israel as a nation. As a result, Israel often pursues policies that are opposed by international public opinion and condemned by the United Nations. What is important for Israel is not public opinion but its continued existence as a nation.

Today, Ukraine is in a unique position to demand security guarantees from the United States in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons on its soil. It must be understood that the only binding guarantee on the United States would be a treaty that commits the U.S. to defend Ukraine if any nuclear power uses force or the threat of force against Ukraine. A written assurance by a U.S. president is not an adequate substitute since it could be, at any time, annulled by that president or any future president. A treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the U.S. Senate, has the force of United States law.

The people of Bosnia are learning of the commitment of the West to their existence. As Bosnia is being devastated and its civilians indiscriminately murdered, the West condemns Serbia but does nothing to assist Bosnia - not even providing it with military equipment to defend itself. If only Bosnia had a treaty with any Western power.

In 1934, Congressman Hamilton Fish introduced a resolution in the U.S. Congress condemning the famine in Ukraine. At that time, despite having a mass of information about the famine, the U.S. Department of State told Congress that there was no famine in Ukraine. Today, that same Department of State is telling Ukraine that it does not need a treaty to guarantee its security. Perhaps, Ukraine should ask the State Department the following questions: Why should Ukraine, which borders on Russia, trust its security to the good will of Russia, while the United States, 7,500 kilometers from Russia, is not prepared to dismantle all its nuclear weapons? Why are not Great Britain and France, each about 2,500 kilometers from Russia, dismantling any of their nuclear weapons? If Russia is truly not a threat to Ukraine, then why is the United States opposed to signing a security treaty with Ukraine?