A HISTORICAL DAY FOR UKRAINE
“December 5, 1995 was a historical day for Ukraine. After the Budapest Memorandum was signed by the RF and US presidents and UK prime minister, it was also joined by France and the Republic of China. Thus Ukraine received special assurances of its security from all of the five regular members of the UN Security Council. It was an unprecedented case in contemporary international life and international law.
“In my opinion, after signing the Budapest Memorandum, the Ukrainian foreign policy faced two strategic alternatives. The first choice was to make the Memorandum the basis for our foreign policy and security strategy in order to position Ukraine as a non-aligned state, which would be neutral in military and security questions. This strategy was quite possible and, I think, most acceptable for Ukraine. It fully conformed to the key regulations of Declaration of Ukraine’s State Sovereignty and Act of Declaration of Independence.
“However, the Ukrainian political elite at the time gave preference to the other strategic alternative — the approach of bloc allegiance. The fundamentals of Ukraine’s international security started to take shape not on the basis of the Budapest Memorandum, but on the policy of NATO accession.”
“THE REAL POWER OF THE MEMORANDUM”
We hear now various opinions concerning the Budapest Memorandum. It is being called a “paper tiger,” “meaningless paper,” or a “straw.” Many support the idea of revising this document. Can you say what this memorandum has actually given Ukraine?
“First, in the 21st century such a state as Ukraine, which is a regional European country, can ensure its security exclusively through well-balanced and adequate foreign and security policies on the basis of international law and international strategic agreements, which determine its geopolitical status.
“The Budapest Memorandum is precisely the kind of international legal document that determined Ukraine’s geopolitical status as a non-aligned, neutral state with respective security assurances [from other countries].
“Second, this memorandum is called a ‘paper tiger’ by those who don’t want to view it as the key element of Ukraine’s future foreign policy strategy and focus mainly on Ukraine’s continued course towards NATO. This strategy is impossible for objective reasons that do not depend on Ukraine.
“Third, looking at the real effect the Budapest Memorandum had, in the key moments, when our country faced real threats to its territorial integrity, this document worked 100 percent. I want to remind you of the Tuzla Island incident. The first reaction of the Ukrainian diplomats was to apply ‘Tarasiuk’s formula.’ In 1993, he obtained a special decision from the UN Security Council concerning certain territorial claims on Sevastopol. However, the consultations with the UN Security Council proved that neither the Security Council, nor other UN structures were very keen to demonstrate activeness concerning situation in Tuzla. Appeals to our strategic partners in Brussels and Washington also met a restrained reaction.
“As a result, despite different political statements made by Ukraine, Russia continued to build the dam. Then I persuaded them to use the mechanism of consultations stipulated by the Budapest memorandum to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Correspondingly, Ukraine appealed to the US and Russia through diplomatic channels with a request to hold consultations concerning the situation on Tuzla Island. These actions on the part of Ukraine made it possible to solve the situation after informal consultations in Moscow with Russian and US diplomats. The Budapest Memorandum worked efficiently.”
In your words, the memorandum appears to be an efficient tool, but almost nobody in Ukraine shares your opinion.
“I did not either in the past when I regarded that Ukraine had only one strategy to ensure its national security — joining NATO. In this situation the Budapest Memorandum was unnecessary and even harmful.
“Can one speak in a serious way about the efficiency of the Budapest Memorandum, if Ukraine has never formally used its mechanisms in the 15 years of its existence? All this while Ukrainian diplomats have been seeking other instruments with which to defend the national security rather than the regulations of this memorandum. Therefore, we have hardly any right to criticize it or doubt its efficiency.
“In particular, during the first gas war in 2006, President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine commissioned Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry to send letters of request to the world’s guarantor-countries, asking to hold emergent consultations within the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. These letters were signed by the president, but unfortunately, they were never sent.”
Why not?
“The reason was that the politicians who were carrying out foreign policy at the time understood that they could not send those letters and ask for assurances under the Budapest Memorandum while stating that Ukraine was going to enter NATO. Therefore, they dragged their feet until the last moment. Then, on Jan. 3, 2006, this question became irrelevant.
SECURITY VACUUM AND A NEW FORMULA FOR UKRAINE
You must have seen that the MPs proposed to adopt the declaration “Non-nuclear status should have real guaranties.” Once you also told in an interview to The Day that we need legally binding assurances.
“This question exists. Any document is like a flower. If nobody waters it or cares about it, it will fade, The same thing is with the Budapest Memorandum. First, Ukraine has not practically used it in 15 years. Moreover, it had a direct intention not to use it. Second, the circumstances have absolutely changed. After NATO expanded eastwards, and Collective Security Treaty Organization — westwards, Ukraine remains virtually the only big regional European country which is not a member of any of these regional security systems.
“Ukraine has been seeking to become a NATO member for 15 years. However, NATO’s leading countries took into account Russia’s stance and came to a conclusion that Ukraine’s entry into NATO poses more questions in the context of the new pan-European security system than it provides answers.
“This is a long-term tendency, as it was caused by new foundational geopolitical balances of the modern global world.
“Under these circumstances Ukraine, as never before, feels the security vacuum and strategic indefiniteness of its geopolitical status.
“This situation is the result of the NATO-RF relations, which gives grounds to Ukraine’s new president to initiate an international conference of the guarantor-countries in 2010-11 in Ukraine with the aim to work out a new security formula for Ukraine, which would meet today’s challenges, according to Article 6 of the Budapest Memorandum.
“Naturally, this would mean, above all, confirmation and reinforcement of the already existing security assurances as established by the Budapest Memorandum.”
What is being done in this direction?
“I know that Ukrainian diplomats are working on this issue today. In particular, we have signed in 2008 the Charter on Strategic Partnership with the US in which our overseas strategic partner confirmed its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum. Moreover, I regard it as a positive factor that people, including politicians, who have been strong adherents of Ukraine’s future NATO membership (I mean V. Horbulin), have begun to work on the idea of strengthening security assurances stipulated by the Budapest Memorandum.
“On the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine has exchanged letters on the highest level with guarantor-countries concerning this question. Here I would draw your attention to the statement made by the RF Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Kharkiv on Oct. 7, 2009: ‘Now we are trying to formulate these assurances so that nobody felt that they are weakened. We are ready to confirm them to the fullest, and hopefully the American side will agree with this, too.’
“Similar assurances were voiced by US Vice President Joe Biden during his visit to Kyiv in July 2009, US Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow in his speech in Ukraine’s Diplomatic Academy in late September 2009, and current U.S. Ambassador John Tefft in his speech before the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Affairs in early October 2009.
“However, the status of this memorandum should be confirmed not by our foreign partners, but by us. We need to make it the foundation for Ukraine’s new foreign policy. I am sure that there are no political, international, or economic foundations that would prevent Ukraine from doing this after the presidential elections. My contacts with my colleagues and diplomats, scholars and politicians in Washington, Berlin, London, and Moscow show that everybody is ready for this. But everyone is waiting for the decision Ukraine will make and the official stance Kyiv will take.
AUSTRIAN PRECEDENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF RUSSIA’S BLACK SEA FLEET FROM UKRAINE
If everything is confirmed, will those assurances be necessary for our country’s security? Will there be enough security afterwards?
“The Budapest Memorandum alone is not sufficient by far, even with reinforced security assurances. Ukraine needs to adopt a new foreign policy that would rest on the foundations of the Declaration on Ukraine’s State Sovereignty and regulations of the Budapest Memorandum.
“Seeking a universal formula for Ukraine’s security in the 21st century, Ukraine may be interested in borrowing from Austria’s experience. After the Second World War, this country experienced a considerable lack of security. The Soviet army was stationed on its territory. For 10 years Austrian diplomats carried out a consistent and reasonable policy aimed at receiving assurances of Austria’s security from the countries of the Big Four (Great Britain, France, the US, and the USSR) in a package with the obligations taken on by the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Austria. In 1955, a relative State Agreement was signed.
“Ukraine in now in a somewhat similar situation. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is stationed on our country’s territory. If we want to reinforce the legal character of the assurances provided by the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine should assume far greater legal obligations concerning its non-aligned and neutral stance. In other words, it should remove from its agenda the question of NATO membership. This will enable Ukraine to raise before guarantor-countries the question of withdrawal of Russia’s Black See Fleet from the territory of Ukraine, as a neutral country, by 2017. That is, we should apply the Austrian formula.”
Is Russia ready to support this formula and withdraw its Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine?
“My informal contacts with Russian diplomats and scholars indicate that Russia is basically ready to accept this formula. A proof of this is a statement Lavrov made in Kharkiv. If Ukraine takes on clear-cut obligations to keep to its position as a non-aligned and neutral state in its practical foreign policy, I am sure that it will be possible to apply the Austrian formula.
“However, as far as I know, the question of withdrawal of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine in this context has not been discussed with Russia on the official level.”
