[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine: US Embassy Kyiv; WSJ; AP; Belarus remarks

[Deychak, Orest]

U.S. Embassy - Kyiv

November 6, 2009

U.S.-UKRAINE COOPERATION UNDERWAY TO COMBAT H1N1 INFLUENZA 

In an effort to stop the global spread of pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza
virus, the United States is planning to donate 10 percent of US domestic
H1N1 vaccine supply, as it becomes available, to a WHO-led H1N1 vaccine
initiative. The US donation to WHO, equivalent to 25 million doses of
vaccine, would be valued commercially at approximately $10 million. 

As part of the first phase of this initiative, Ukraine is scheduled to
receive 930,000 doses of H1N1 vaccine in early December. Planning to
complement this donation with a broad range of interventions to support
the safe delivery and deployment of the vaccines, the USG will be
working closely with the Government of Ukraine in the days ahead to
identify needs and agree on a package of immunization-related commodity
and technical support that can be implemented rapidly to support H1N1
immunization. As required and requested by the GOU, the USG is prepared
to make available immunization ancillary materials such as syringes,
needles, and vaccine safety disposal boxes, to provide technical support
for immunization planning as well as for logistics and assistance to
transport the vaccine, to train vaccinators and other professionals, and
to prepare communications materials in support of the immunization
campaign. 

The US recognizes that improved access to the H1N1 vaccine will limit
the spread of the virus and help save lives, and stands ready to provide
robust and timely support to the Government of Ukraine to address this
global health threat. 

The US is also prepared to assist Ukraine during this outbreak through
the Biological Threat Reduction Program. The Biological Threat Reduction
Program works with the Ministry of Health, the State Committee for
Veterinary Medicine, and the Academy of Agrarian Sciences to help combat
specific threats to public health such as H1N1. Under this program, the
US has continued to work closely with our counterparts at Ukraine's
Central Sanitary Epidemiological Station (CSES) during the current H1N1
outbreak and has offered both technical and material assistance. For
example, the US is offering Ukraine's CSES both equipment and test
supplies to improve their diagnostic capabilities and ability to react
to the current situation. 
 

The Wall Street Journal

World News: New Route to Europe Cleared For Natural Gas From Russia 

By Guy Chazan 

6 November 2009

A15

Nord Stream, an $11 billion pipeline that would pump natural gas from
Russia to Germany and bypass Ukraine, cleared its last major regulatory
hurdles on Thursday when Sweden and Finland both gave the green light to
a project that could redraw Europe's energy map.

The two countries' governments said they had granted consent for the
pipeline to pass through their exclusive economic zones in the Baltic
Sea. Denmark approved the project last month. That leaves only Russia
and Germany, whose consent is seen as a formality.

Once up and running, Nord Stream could spell the demise of Ukraine's
status as a big gas-transit country. The European Union gets 80% of its
Russian natural-gas supplies via Ukraine, but the long-term viability of
the route has been called into question, especially after a pricing
dispute between Moscow and Kiev in January led to a cutoff of Russian
gas to hundreds of thousands of Europeans in the middle of winter.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned last month of possible new
supply disruptions, amid signs that a cash-strapped Ukraine was
struggling to pay its bill for the gas it imports from Russia. On
Thursday, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso urged
Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko to prevent delays in payments to
Russia.

For years, Russia has been seeking to reduce its dependence on Ukraine
and come up with alternative export routes. Nord Stream, backed by a
consortium that is led by Kremlin-controlled gas giant OAO Gazprom
<javascript:void(0);> , was one. Another was South Stream, a pipeline
that would run under the Black Sea into Eastern Europe.

Some analysts have questioned whether the huge investments required to
build such infrastructure will pay off, amid creeping doubts about
long-term demand for gas. The projects were conceived at a time when the
EU was forecasting big increases in its demand for the clean-burning
fuel and worrying about energy security.

In recent months, however, a deepening oversupply of gas and predictions
that climate-change policies to limit carbon-dioxide emissions could
damp demand for all fossil fuels, including gas, has led many to scale
back forecasts.

"Nord Stream will be completed by 2012, a time when Europe won't need
the additional gas because of the supply glut," said Mikhail Korchemkin,
head of consultancy East European Gas Analysis and a critic of the
project.

That is disputed by Nord Stream AG, the Swiss-based joint venture that
will build and operate the pipeline. It says that by 2025, as domestic
production declines, 81% of the gas the EU consumes will be imported,
compared with 58% in 2005. That means the bloc will have to import
nearly 200 billion cubic meters of gas a year more than it does now, and
so will need not only Nord Stream but also several other new import
routes to ensure adequate supply.

"Even if the demand for additional imports doesn't grow as quickly as
predicted, the import gap will still be significant and much bigger than
Nord Stream's capacity," said Sebastian Sass, head of Nord Stream's EU
representation.

As well as doubts about future demand, Nord Stream also had to deal with
objections from Baltic Sea nations, which feared the possible negative
impact that construction of the pipeline might have on local fisheries,
shipping traffic and the marine environment.

The joint venture, in which Gazprom <javascript:void(0);>  has a 51%
stake, Germany's BASF/Wintershall AG and E.On Ruhrgas AG 20% each, and 
NV Nederlandse Gasunie <javascript:void(0);>  of the Netherlands 9%,
will start building the first of two 760 mile long parallel pipelines
next year. The first is to be operational in 2011 and the second a year
later.


The project would for the first time directly link Russia's vast gas
fields in Siberia to the country's largest European customer, Germany.
The pipelines would have a capacity of 55 billion cubic meters a year --
enough to supply more than 26 million households. Ukraine pays Russia
gas debt, easing dispute fears.


 

Associated Press


 Ukraine pays Russia gas debt, easing dispute fears


 

Fears of a repeat of the January dispute that saw Russia cut gas
supplies to Europe eased on Friday after Ukraine said it had paid its
latest bill on time. 

Monday is the deadline for Ukraine to pay the $500 million owed for gas
used in October, which Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said had been
paid in full.

A spokesman for Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, declined to comment
on whether the funds had been received.

Tymoshenko's announcement followed a string of mixed signals from
Ukraine, which has kept Europe and Russia in suspense as to whether it
could foot the bill and avoid another gas dispute.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned European countries last
week that Ukraine may not be able to meet its commitments to Gazprom,
Russia's state gas monopoly. On Monday, he urged the European Union to
lend Ukraine at least $1 billion to help it pay for the gas supplies.

Bogdan Sokolovsky, the chief energy advisor to the Ukrainian president,
said last week that Kiev's ability to pay for the gas was "an open
question" and may even require a loan from Moscow.

Ukraine has been sticking to the payment schedule since it settled its
January gas dispute with Russia. That dispute saw Gazprom cut supplies
to EU nations through Ukraine for two weeks after price negotiations
failed. The halt in supplies led to severe fuel shortages across
southeastern Europe in the dead of winter.

Europe gets around 20 percent of its gas from Russia, most of it via
pipelines that cross Ukraine.

In July, the European Commission brokered an agreement between Ukraine
and international lenders - including the World Bank, the European
Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
- to provide up to $1.7 billion in loans to help it pay its gas bills.
As part of that deal, the Ukrainian government also agreed to make its
gas transport system more transparent.

Ukraine's payment on Friday does not solve the country's problems,
analysts said, as its shaky financial position and feuding leaders are
likely to keep tensions high for months to come.

A bitter rivalry between Ukraine's president and prime minister is seen
as one of the main problems. Tymoshenko says President Viktor
Yushchenko, against whom she is competing in presidential elections in
January, was making it difficult to pay the gas bill.

Shirvani Abdullayev, gas analyst at Alfa Bank in Moscow, believes it is
just a matter of time before Ukraine fails to meet a payment.

"It's true that Ukraine's economy is in chaos," said Abdullayev. "But if
someone in Ukraine wanted a reasonable solution, it would be found. But
the problem is, none of the Ukrainian political forces is able to come
up with a particular agenda for relations with Russia."

Ukraine's gold and currency reserves currently stand at $27.7 billion -
worth a few years of payments for Russian gas, but authorities say the
problem is that consumers are not paying their gas bills.

Tymoshenko urged Ukrainians earlier this year to pay their gas bills on
time, describing it as a civic duty.

Observers say a hike in the tariffs for domestic consumers - although
unlikely to go down well with voters - could be a solution.

In previous gas disputes, Moscow suggested that the payment problems
would be settled if only Ukraine were to agree to sell its pipeline
network to Russia. However, Ukraine's constitution does not allow its
sale to foreigners.

Russia hasn't lost hope to gain control of the system, observers said,
and it now may be pushing even harder.

"The only thing that could prevent the escalation of this conflict is
Ukraine selling or promising to sell the Ukrainian pipeline to Russia,"
Abdullayev said. "Russia feels this is about time." 

 

Belarus

With Lukashenka's official visit to Kyiv yesterday, I thought I'd share
with those of you who might be interested my remarks at a panel on
Belarus at the October 22-23 Ukraine's Quest for Mature Nation Statehood
Conference/Roundtable X: Compelling Bilateral Relations. Orest
Deychakiwsky

 

Ukraine's Quest for Mature Nation Statehood Conference 

Session:  Relations with Belarus - Belarus' Potential Promise 

October 22, 2009

 

 Several months ago, on June 30, a seven-member U.S. Congressional
delegation led by Helsinki Commission Chairman Sen. Benjamin Cardin met
with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka in Minsk.  It was the
highest level meeting between the U.S. and Belarus in many years. During
the visit, Lukashenka released an American prisoner on whose behalf the
State Department and Commission had advocated for humanitarian
consideration due to health concerns besides the fact that he had been
convicted in a closed trial.  While welcoming the release, the
Congressional delegation made clear to Lukashenka that the only way to
meaningfully improve relations between the U.S. and Belarus is for his
regime to increase political freedom and respect for human rights - i.e.
to begin abiding with Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE and other
international commitments.  I won't go into detail about the Lukashenka
regime's record of repression or how Lukashenka has amassed power over
the last 15 years as time does not permit and I suspect most of you are
familiar with it.  Suffice it to say that Belarus has the worst
democracy and human rights record of any country entirely located in
Europe.

 

Lukashenka knew very well with whom he was meeting on that day, as the
Helsinki Commission has been a strong critic of his regime holding
public hearings and briefings, authoring resolutions, issuing
statements, meeting with representatives of the opposition.  Among those
present at the meeting was Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Chris Smith,
sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act (BDA) and Belarus Democracy
Re-Authorization Act - legislation that passed both chambers of Congress
overwhelmingly in 2004 and 2006.  The Belarusian regime, not
surprisingly, can't abide this legislation as it includes language on
targeted sanctions, a visa ban for high ranking officials, as well as
assistance for democracy promotion and international broadcasting to
Belarus. Various of these targeted sanctions have been implemented over
the course of the last five years, including on the giant Belneftakhim
gas and chemical conglomerate a company from which Lukashenka and his
entourage reportedly personally benefit.  

 

Now, arguably because of these tougher sanctions, as well as an EU visa
ban, Lukashenka released   political prisoners in August 2008 and
allowed two independent newspapers access to state distribution systems
-encouraging steps.  Shortly thereafter the U.S. temporarily suspended
economic sanctions against two Belneftakhim subsidiaries.  The
suspensions have been renewed several times, although the other
Belneftakhim sanctions remain in place, as does the U.S.visa ban.
President Obama has continued these policies [Last June, President Obama
notified Congress of his intention to extend for another year his
authority to impose sanctions on Belarus, representing continuity with
the previous administration.]   In addition, the U.S. also has not stood
in the way of IMF loans for Belarus, and I think this is an important
signal that the U.S. is open to dialogue and engagement. Lukashenka
himself acknowledged this in the June 30 meeting with Members of the
Commission.  

 

So, have the Belarusians taken advantage of the openings offered by the
U.S. willingness to begin the process of engagement (or, for that
matter, EU steps such as lifting a visa ban on Belarusian officials -
surprisingly, soon after the September 30, 2008 parliamentary elections
which was strongly criticized by the OSCE and the EU- myself witnessed
them as an OSCE observer)?  What have the Belarusians done?  The answer
is not much. 

 

 Lukashenka's policies have remained largely unchanged in the last year.
While very modest concessions were made to the political opposition and
civil society that allowed them carry out some activities without
harassment, repressive measures remained in place and continued to be
enforced on a selective basis. No changes have yet been made to the
legal framework that would indicate a substantive shift in government
policy. No significant progress has thus far been made in the five areas
of concern to the U.S and EU election legislation, media freedom,
freedom of association, the situation of civil society and freedom of
assembly.  Although just yesterday Lukashenka did say that Belarus will
liberalize election laws in line with OSCE recommendations, which is a
potentially promising development, if it actually happens.  Based on the
past, I think a wait and see attitude on this is the prudent course of
action...

 

Supposed "liberalization" in the area of media freedom has been
described as "one step forward - two steps back"  There had been some
easing of pressure on journalists, although that seems to have been
reversed, too, in the last month, when journalists have been forcibly
prevented from filming demonstrations. The registration of some public
organizations continues to be denied.  There has been  increased use of
excessive police force against demonstrators in the last few months -
the latest example of which we saw just last week in Minsk,  involuntary
conscription of democratic youth activists.  Thus far this year,
according to the human rights organization Viasna, 424 people are known
to have been detained and brought to administrative responsibility on
political grounds thus far this year.  

 

Why do I spend time talking about human rights and democracy?  Because
it's quite clear that for the U.S. they are critical in relations with
Belarus.  And I believe they are even for the EU, despite being
downplayed by some Europeans

 

Now, the geo-political considerations are understood, including by the
United States.  It's understood, to varying degrees, how Lukashenka
tries to play Russia against the EU.  Clearly, Lukashenka's relations
with Russia are quite problematic.   Russia, after all, has put
considerable economic pressure on Belarus in the last few years,
especially in the energy realm, and seems to want to take over Belarus'
economic assets.  Lukashenka has at times distanced himself from the
Kremlin, for instance, thus far not recognizing South Ossetia and
Abkhazia.  But I believe the West cannot wrest away Belarus from Russia
because the current regime (i.e. Lukashenka) is
constitutionally/psychologically incapable of major change with respect
to democratic and economic reform, with the caveat that given the
serious current economic situation in Belarus, events may force him to
liberalize the economy to a certain extent.  The bottom line: Lukashenka
fears losing power.  So any improvements in relations are going to be
limited by Lukashenka's inability and unwillingness to change in any
substantial way.  Let me cite a concrete example:  in his meeting with
our Congressional delegation, where he was extremely defensive about
Belarus' human rights and democracy record, Lukashenka said that the
U.S. should lift all of its sanctions first, after which he'll make
progress on human rights/democracy issues.  We, of course, say just the
reverse - it's up to him to show he's serious by making some human
rights/democracy  progress.   

 

So, it's best to have limited expectations.  Having said that, though, I
believe one can work around the margins and improve relations -
especially Belarus' neighbors such as Ukraine - on issues of common
concern - border, trade, energy, transportation, consular issues and
Foreign Minister Poroshenko was just in Belarus to discuss these.
Belarus' neighbors have interests in advancing bilateral cooperation in
some basic areas irrespective of whether they like the political system
of Belarus or not.  And, for Ukraine, there are very close historic,
linguistic, family and cultural ties with Belarus.  But that should not
obscure the fact that for the last 15 years, Ukraine and Belarus have
gone in very different directions.  And very importantly, Ukraine, while
engaging in a practical way with the Belarusian government, should also
maintain close contacts with the democratic opposition and Belarusian
civil society and Ukrainian officials should, too, encourage the
development of human rights and democracy in Belarus.  I think it's very
positive that Ukrainian NGOs have a good record of support for their
Belarusian brothers and sisters (eg Lviv picket last week on behalf of
Belarusian political prisoners).

 

Furthermore, despite the Lukashenka regime's discouraging record, the
U.S. and EU should continue to be open to and seek ways to improve
relations when even incremental progress is made on the Belarusian side
and respond in kind - in a calibrated, measured way. (eg if we see these
election reforms he promised yesterday are real, we should respond).  At
the same time, what's essential is that the U.S. continue its strong
support for those struggling for a more democratic, more European future
in Belarus - both civil society/NGOs and democratic political opposition
parties -- and this is certainly something that the US Congress has a
long track record in supporting, as do US NGOs such as IRI, NDI, NED
etc. 

 

To conclude, a Belarus rooted in Europe, one which respects human
rights, democracy, the rule of law is the best guarantee of Belarus'
independence and well-being. And finally, Belarus' European future
ultimately lies with those in Belarusian society - the democratic
opposition, NGOs, or independent media -fighting for freedom, and this
is something the West, including Ukraine, should not lose sight of.  

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 25036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20091106/156dfe42/attachment.bin>