EDITORIAL: Chornobyl and the West (06/29/97)

EDITORIAL

Chornobyl and the West

Guest editorial by Natalia Feduschak

On the surface, it appears the world is taking serious note of the obstacles Ukraine faces in shutting down the Chornobyl nuclear station.

U.S. Vice-President Al Gore personally invited Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma to participate in this week's earth summit to discuss his country's environmental problems, of which the shutdown of Chornobyl is problem No. 1. And, in Denver last week, the leaders of Group of Seven industrial nations agreed to contribute an additional $300 million to secure the environmental safety of the sarcophagus covering the remains of Chornobyl's destroyed fourth reactor. That brings the total of G-7 assistance for Chornobyl's closure to over $2 billion. As well, they called on the world community and donor organizations to join them at a special pledging conference this fall to ensure full implementation of the project.

Yet the experience of the last two years shows that where Chornobyl is concerned Western promises of financial aid aren't worth much and there's no reason to believe the situation will change in the future. Instead, the likely scenario for the next few years is that the West will continue making empty promises, while admonishing Ukraine for not moving quickly enough to shut down the station. Ukraine will struggle along, dealing with Chornobyl as best it can. The end result will be that the year 2000 - the deadline by which Kyiv has promised to close the station - will come and go. Chornobyl will remain online. The media, not understanding how little financial support Ukraine has received from the West, will blame Kyiv for not closing the station in time. Once again, Ukraine will look like the bad guy.

With much ballyhoo, two years ago the G-7 unveiled a financial aid package worth nearly $1.8 billion to help Ukraine decommission the Chornobyl nuclear power station, the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. Under the terms of the agreement, funds were to be disbursed for several feasibility studies, including for the construction of a new sarcophagus over the fourth reactor, which exploded in 1986, storage facilities for nuclear fuel, as well as the completion of two new nuclear power stations in Ukraine. The energy from these new stations - both are designed to Western standards - is to compensate for the energy lost when Chornobyl is taken off line in the year 2000.

Two years after it was promised, however, Ukraine is still waiting for much of the G-7 funding to come through. "The situation remains essentially the same as it was last year," complains Kostyantyn Ruda, an official at Ukraine's of the Ministry Environment. "It's stagnant." Despite additional aid for the sarcophagus, Mr. Ruda says the most pressing issue for Ukraine is finishing construction of the nuclear power stations. Although nearly $700 million of a needed $1.2 billion had been promised for that task, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, set up to help Central and Eastern European nations make the transition from communism to capitalism, nixed plans earlier this month to disburse the funds. A study conducted by the bank claimed the so-called least-cost principle was not adhered to in construction designs for the two stations. Even though the report was criticized by a number of European aid organizations, the EBRD's board declined to make any further decisions on releasing funds until after the Denver summit. Kyiv had hoped U.S. President Bill Clinton would persuade G-7 leaders to override the EBRD's decision, thereby forcing the bank's hand when it meets again later this month. It now appears, however, that money to finish construction on the two stations, which are about 80 percent complete, won't be available any time soon. Jacques Santer, president of the European Commission, told reporters in Denver the EBRD's findings merit further analysis: the topic of completing the two stations was barely touched upon at the summit.

This has put Ukraine, which wants to decommission Chornobyl but doesn't have the money to do so, in an uncomfortable position. Mr. Kuchma - who wasn't invited to Denver although rumors circulated he might be present during discussions on Chornobyl - argued his country's case at the earth summit in New York on Tuesday.

"We expect that the G-7 countries will live up to their commitments and enforce the Memorandum of Understanding" signed between the alliance, Ukraine and the EC two years ago, the Ukrainian president said. He added that, in a show of good faith, Kyiv last year shut down Chornobyl's first reactor. That leaves only one reactor at the station on line. The destroyed No. 4 reactor remains encased in cement, while the second reactor has been out of commission since a fire in its turbine generator in 1991.

As they prepare for the pledging conference, in the following months the world's leaders would do well to remember that Ukraine has promised to shut down Chornobyl largely because the West feels uneasy with the station remaining on line, not because this nation of 52 million can afford to. The station, which has undergone a $300 million modernization over the years, still supplies energy to 5 percent of the population; that is roughly equivalent to keeping the capital, Kyiv, a picturesque city of 2 million, up and running. Anyone who has experienced increasingly dark and cold Ukrainian winters because of present energy shortages knows that closing Chornobyl without providing alternative energy resources is not a viable option.

If the international community wants Ukraine to fulfill to its obligations in a timely fashion, it must keep its end of the bargain. To ease its own burden, the international community should also encourage Moscow, which in Soviet times was responsible for the station being built, to help finance Chornobyl's closure. In Denver, the Russians didn't even want to broach the subject of Chornobyl. Yet a true test of Moscow's ability to be an honorable member of the Western community, particularly on the eve of its acceptance into the Paris Club, will depend on how the country treats its closest neighbors. (There's little doubt, however, this will be a difficult undertaking. Anatolii Chubais, Russia's finance minister, told this correspondent that unless Ukraine resolves a number of "outstanding issues" between the two countries, Moscow will have to think twice before giving Kyiv financial aid in the future, especially for Chornobyl.) Coming through on aid to Ukraine, however, is also a test of the West's resolve to tackle problematic issues. If in the next few months Ukraine doesn't receive money already promised for Chornobyl's closure, there's no reason to believe the international community, especially the G-7, will follow through on assurances made to ravaged Africa, be successful in combating global warming, or, further down the road, assist in the expansion of NATO.

In that case, Mr. Clinton - who stressed in Denver that shutting down Chornobyl isn't just Ukraine's problem - should then turn to U.S. lawmakers and ask them to provide financial assistance for decommissioning the station. If politicians in Washington say "no," then it will be evident who is really backing away from closing Chornobyl. It will be the West, and not Ukraine.

Natalia Feduschak, a former staffer of The Ukrainian Weekly (1985-1987) and a former special correspondent in Kyiv for the Wall Street Journal (1991-1995), is a contributor to The Ukrainian Quarterly. She is based in Denver.

| Home Page |