[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine: FT; CFR; RFE/RL;

[Deychak, Orest]

The Financial Times

www.ft.com

Crisis in Kiev tests patience of Berlin and Moscow

By Quentin Peel 

Published: February 24 2009 

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister, is not normally a man lost for words. In an interview with the FT last week he talked fluently on how to cope with the global economic crisis and on relations with Russia.

On one subject, however, he was temporarily silenced: what to do about the crisis in Ukraine.

"We haven't got an answer to everything," he said with a grin.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been a high priority for German foreign policy. Russia has never come to terms with the idea of the country being independent - Vladimir Putin, then Russian president, said as much when he attended last year's Nato summit in Bucharest. It is a vital conduit for 80 per cent of Europe's natural gas supplies from Russia, as last month's total shutdown of the transit pipes demonstrated.

Berlin wants stability in Ukraine, to avoid creating the grounds for any unnecessary conflict with Moscow. Russia wants a compliant government in Kiev that does not talk about joining Nato and does not control the transit routes for Russia's gas supplies to Europe.

Mr Steinmeier's concern, however, is that instead there is "complete deadlock" in the Ukrainian political process with the stand-off between the president, Viktor Yushchenko, and the premier, Julia Tymoshenko. It undermines attempts to draft a recovery programme in the face of a collapse in gross domestic product - down 20 per cent in the 12 months to January.

"On the one hand it makes them incapable of acting, and on the other the preparation for elections is not happening," he said.

"We have supported Ukraine at the IMF [which agreed a two-year standby credit last year of $16.4bn], and we supported them at the [European Bank for Reconstruction and Development]. Whether we can do more, I do not know."

Yet more is almost certainly needed. For a start, the gas deal negotiated with Russia in January could well fall apart in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Naftogaz, the Ukrainian state gas monopoly that is responsible for paying Gazprom, the Russian supplier, is in effect bankrupt. It is forced to sell gas to Ukrainian consumers at a huge markdown and loses about $2bn (€1.5bn, £1.4bn) a year, a sum that has to be met with government subsidies.

The second tranche of Ukraine's IMF credit has been suspended while the government argues over whether its budget deficit should be 1 per cent or 3 per cent of GDP. The fund will only allow the latter if extra finance is found.

Anders Aslund, former adviser to the Ukrainian government, is more sanguine than Mr Steinmeier. He argues that Ukraine simply has "the most open democratic discussion that you hear anywhere, apart from Britain and India". He also believes that the economy has already hit bottom. But another $5bn is needed - beyond the funds from the IMF, World Bank, European institutions and commercial banks - to plug its financing gap.

"It is very small money," he says, "but the consequences of not giving it are horrendous. It is important that you should have funds available that can be used for fire brigade exercises."

Mr Steinmeier is unhappy about any such idea. "If you say Yes to Ukraine, what do we do in Moldova or in Georgia? Where does it begin, and where will it end? Can you restrict it to Ukraine?" he asks.

Russia, on the other hand, has said yes in principle to helping out. But what strings will be attached? Not the sort of budget discipline Berlin would demand. Mr Putin - and Gazprom - have made little secret that they want to end up in control of all the gas pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine. Then there would be no need for any more disputes about gas prices in the middle of winter.

(Frankly, Germany and the EU could do considerably more to help neighboring Ukraine, despite Herr Steinmeier’s spin on it.  I dare say that providing Ukraine with more funding along the lines of Anders Aslund’s recommendation could foster the very stability in Ukraine that Berlin and Brussels claim to want. OD)

Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18423/averting_crisis_in_ukraine.html

 

News Release:
Ukraine's Instability Threatens Crisis, Weakens its Candidacy for NATO, EU, Warns CFR Report 

February 24, 2009
Council on Foreign Relations 

Ukraine's political infighting and tensions with Russia threaten its path to stability and integration with the West, warns a new Council Special Report. "A more divided Ukraine would be less able to formulate a coherent foreign policy course with which the U.S. government could engage; it could even be driven to reorient itself on a more Moscow-focused course," says report author Steven Pifer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center on the United States and Europe and former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

On the crucial NATO question, the report, Averting Crisis in Ukraine, urges the United States to support continued Ukrainian integration with the alliance, though it recommends waiting to back concrete steps toward membership until Kiev achieves consensus on this point. "What happens to Ukraine will matter to Washington," says the report, sponsored by CFR's Center for Preventive Action (CPA). It says that the U.S. administration, "should maintain the goal of Ukraine's development as a stable, independent, democratic, and market-oriented country, increasingly integrated into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions."

Pifer analyzes the country’s difficulties related to domestic conditions—such as fractious politics, a deeply divided public opinion, and economic recession. He also examines Russia's increasingly assertive foreign policy—including issues related to the continued presence and eventual withdrawal of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Ukrainian and European dependence on Russia's energy, as well as Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO.

"The Kremlin believes that an unstable Ukraine is in its interest. Such instability makes Ukraine an unattractive political model for Russians as well as an unattractive candidate for NATO or the European Union," says Pifer.

The report encourages the Obama administration to adopt a strategy that includes:

- Restoring regular high-level dialogue. "The administration should restore a high-level channel with Kiev. ...This could ensure that bilateral problems are resolved in good time and offer a channel to convey candid, even tough, political messages."

- Counseling Ukrainian leadership. "Washington should quietly counsel [President Viktor] Yushchenko on choosing his fights with Russia in a difficult political year. ...Washington must ensure absolute clarity in Kiev as to how much support Kiev can expect if it gets into a confrontation with Moscow."

- Targeting technical assistance to promote economic opportunities in Sevastopol. "Drawing on the United States’ experience with military base closures, U.S. assistance should help to generate economic and business opportunities in Sevastopol so that the local economy does not face potential devastation by the Black Sea Fleet's withdrawal."

- Increasing technical assistance to promote energy security. "Ukraine's energy dependency on Russia creates a major vulnerability. Washington should target technical assistance to help Kiev adopt transparent arrangements for purchasing and transiting natural gas, expand domestic sources of energy production, and allow energy prices within Ukraine to rise to market levels to promote conservation and greater domestic energy production."

- Supporting NATO integration. "The Obama administration should continue to support Ukraine's integration into NATO. However, given the political turmoil in Kiev and allied reluctance to approve a membership action plan (MAP)," the administration should wait to support Ukraine's MAP until it achieves "a greater degree of internal coherence on the NATO question, and [also builds] support among the elite and broader population."

For full text of the report, visit: www.cfr.org/ukraine_report <http://www.uptilt.com/c.html?rtr=on&s=c7q,1527n,29ev,k778,6fqe,5a19,7xpm> 

 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

February 20, 2009 

NATO Ministers Seek To Keep Door Open To Ukraine, Georgia 

http://www.rferl.org/content/NATO_Ministers_Seek_To_Keep_Doors_Open_To_Ukraine_Georgia/1496731.html

(RFE/RL) -- Talks by NATO defense ministers at an informal gathering in Poland have focused on ways to keep alive the membership hopes of two former Soviet republics -- Ukraine and Georgia.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Yury Yekhanurov, speaking to reporters in Krakow, pleaded for NATO to keep its door open to new members.

"We feel that it is extremely important for all of us that we maintain the principle of NATO's open door, which gives each separate country not only a chance to guarantee its security within the network of the collective security system but -- what is even more important -- divide mutual responsibility for its formation and guarantee," Yekhanurov said.

Today’s talks included meetings of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the NATO-Georgia Commission. The commissions include defense ministers from NATO’s 26 members, as well as their counterparts from Kyiv and Tbilisi.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking before talks at the NATO-Ukraine Commission, addressed Kyiv’s bid to join NATO.

"We have today a timely opportunity to review Ukraine's defense and security sector reform efforts and consider ways in which the alliance can continue to support its preparations for NATO membership," de Hoop Scheffer said.

"NATO remains ready to assist Ukraine in undertaking comprehensive reforms in its defense and security structures. We are determined to continue to develop this strategic partnership," he added.

Aftermath Of August War

During talks at the NATO-Georgia Commission, Georgian officials and NATO defense ministers discussed the aftermath of the war last August between Georgia and Russia. Those talks also focused on NATO's recovery assistance to Georgia, as well as on the issue of Russian military bases on Georgian territory.

It is crystal clear that we do not agree with Russia there. We fundamentally disagree. Does that mean that this measured reengagement with Russia should stop for that reason?

In the face of Russian opposition to membership for Kyiv and Tbilisi, NATO so far has held back on offering the two countries formal invitations to join the alliance. Moscow sees NATO’s eastward expansion as an encroachment in what it considers its historic sphere of influence.

However, NATO has offered to increase military and political cooperation to help both Kyiv and Tbilisi achieve their goal of eventual membership.

De Hoop Scheffer noted that Russia and NATO continue to be at odds over issues linked to the war between Georgia and Russia. But de Hoop Scheffer says those differences will not stop NATO from continuing to meet with Russian officials under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Council.

"We've seen the recognition [by Moscow] of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We see the intention of establishing [Russian] bases there. We still have the problems of the access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- part of Georgia, by the way. Let me reiterate those principles. And it is crystal clear that we do not agree with Russia there. We fundamentally disagree," de Hoop Scheffer said.

"Does that mean that this measured reengagement with Russia should stop for that reason? There my answer is, 'No it should not.' Because we should use the NATO-Russia Council not only as a fair weather institution, but also to discuss these things where we fundamentally disagree," he added.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told journalists that more work needs to be done to overcome divisions within Ukraine over its NATO membership bid.

"There needs to be greater unanimity of view in the Ukrainian government itself about the next steps, not to mention the resources for modernization of Ukraine's military," Gates said.

'Ongoing Relationship'

Gates also said both the United States and NATO would continue to expand cooperation with Georgia, despite opposition from Moscow.

"We have a continuing security relationship with Georgia. We are involved in training. We are involved in military reform in Georgia," Gates said. "So this is an ongoing relationship. And it is a relationship that we are pursuing both bilaterally and within the framework of our NATO allies."

However, German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung expressed skepticism that Ukraine and Georgia are ready to join NATO. He said he does not see conditions in either country that would justify the launching of NATO Membership Action Plans, formal paths toward inclusion in the alliance.

NATO defense ministers also discussed the issue of reforming the alliance. 

NATO has faced criticism that it could be losing its relevance in a world that is vastly different from the post-World War II and Cold War reality when it was created 60 years ago. De Hoop Scheffer has been calling for a new "strategic concept" that would help NATO face 21st-century threats of terrorism, climate change, and cyberattacks.

The NATO gathering is considered an unofficial meeting. That allows the ministers to gather behind closed doors and craft the agenda for an upcoming summit of NATO heads of state. 

 

 

Window on Eurasia: Crimean Tatars Mark Yet Another Tragic Anniversary 

 

Paul Goble

 

            Vienna, February 23 – Yesterday, as the Chechens and Ingush recalled the 65th anniversary of their deportation by Stalin to Central Asia and the continuing relevance of that event, the Crimean Tatars marked yet another anniversary, the 91st year since the Bolshevik’s murdered the first president of independent Crimea.

            On February 23, 1918, Bolshevik-led sailors from the Black Sea Fleet based in Sebastopol brutally killed Numan Celebicihan, the mufti for Crimea, Poland and Lithuania who was elected president of native Crimea less than three months earlier with a promise to transform it into a highly-civilized country in which all nationalities would live in democracy and freedom.

            Crimean Tatars, whose independence was crushed by the Bolsheviks and who also suffered deportation under Stalin recall him frequently because the words of his poem, “Antetkenmen” [“I have Pledged’], have long served as the lyrics of the national anthem of Crimean Tatars seeking autonomy or independence (www.iccrimea.org/literature/numan.htlm).

            And this year, despite the anniversary not being a round one, many Crimean Tatars have been reminded of his words because of the actions of the Ukrainian Berkut militia against Mustafa Hayirov during which they broke into his house firing submachine guns despite his willingness to open the door and receive them.

            As a result of this attack, doctors were forced to amputate Hayirov’s hand, Crimea-L reported yesterday, noting that this injury recalled the words of Celebicihan about “the deep wounds inflicted upon Tatar social life by Russian absolute rule, oppression and tyranny,” wounds that Celebicihan hoped to cure before his death at the age of 33.

            The Crimean Tatar Majlis condemned this action and called on Ukrainian officials to investigate the crime and punish those responsible. According to some reports, officials say they are prepared to compensate Hayirov for physical and moral damages, but his family has announced that it does not intend to call for that.

But in a counterpoint to this latest example of official lawlessness, approximately 20 members of a Crimean Tatar youth organization staged a peaceful demonstration and march in commemoration of the anniversary of Celebicihan’s death and reaffirmed his commitment and theirs to democracy and inter-ethnic comity.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 21090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20090224/8f5591c1/attachment.bin>