Ukraine examines ramifications of future membership in NATO (06/30/02)

Ukraine examines ramifications of future membership in NATO

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - Ukraine might have to ask the Russian Black Sea Fleet to leave Sevastopol if it decides to continue to lay the groundwork for entry into NATO. This was disclosed during an international seminar on regional cooperation and security in Kyiv on June 24, during which a representative of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council announced that it was developing a draft supplement for a new Ukraine-NATO charter on special partnership.

The same day, however, a U.S. expert with close ties to the Bush administration said that Kyiv should not expect membership in the defense alliance for at least a decade, if not longer.

After prolonged debate within the country, Kyiv announced on May 23 that it would officially begin an effort to join NATO. Importantly, the decision came after Moscow, which had long expressed opposition to a NATO member on its border, signed an accord on a special relationship with the defense alliance that gives it a seat at the NATO table on certain global issues.

The vice-chairman of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Serhii Pyrozhkov, said that a draft of a new Ukraine-NATO document on the special relationship between the two parties leading to Ukraine's eventual membership in the alliance will be introduced during a July 9 meeting between NATO and Ukraine in Kyiv.

"It will be a political document that will clearly define our intentions and our relations with NATO," said Mr. Pyrozhkov.

Yet, it could also change the relationship between Moscow and Kyiv, admitted Mr. Pyrozhkov. He explained that NATO criteria do not allow foreign, non-NATO military units on the territory of its member-states. And, while Russia now has a special relationship with NATO in a 19+1 set-up, it has not shown any desire to become a full member. Its navy would still be considered a non-NATO force, should Ukraine attain entry into the alliance.

Mr. Pyrozhkov admitted that Russia has expressed opposition to any talk of the closing of its Sevastopol base. The national security advisor underscored that Kyiv is far from such a decision and that he believes a compromise between Brussels, Kyiv and Moscow could be reached, if necessary.

Ukraine's hoped-for new arrangement with NATO would officially put it in line for eventual NATO membership and would require Ukraine to carry out the NATO Membership Action Plan. Mr. Pyrozhkov said the plan is a set of five fields of requirements that a potential NATO member must fulfill before it is considered for inclusion. The five sectors are: political (rule of law, civil society, human rights and free press); economic (market reforms and open markets); military (armed forces reform); security (anti-terrorism efforts and information exchanges); and legal (normative documents in line with European standards).

Mr. Pyrozhkov said that while some Western European leaders have expressed doubts that Ukraine is ready for such a step, Kyiv believes that it has already fulfilled some requirements, such as the 1995 agreement on exchange of secret documents between the two sides. Ukraine hopes to have its new status recognized at the Prague Summit of NATO scheduled for November.

The same day Mr. Pyrozhkov made his announcement, Dr. Michael McFaul of Stanford University's Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace unwittingly cast a shadow over Ukraine's plans when he told journalists in Kyiv that Ukraine's international stature had fallen in NATO's eyes, and the country would have to wait at least a decade for any hope of membership.

"Ukrainian membership in NATO will be a long-term process. From Washington there will be a focus on mechanisms that are in place, and the process will be stretched out further," explained the foreign policy expert, whose specialty is U.S.-Russian relations and the post-Soviet transition. He added, "I don't know of a single person in [NATO] who is ready to speak about Ukrainian membership for at least a decade."

Dr. McFaul, a former colleague of National Security Advisor Condeleezza Rice and one of the persons who briefed President George Bush before his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that two factors had reduced Ukraine's international importance and influence.

First, Dr. McFaul explained that within the Bush administration there is a distrust of Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma, which has developed as a result of the various controversies that have clouded his administration, including the Gongadze affair, arms sales to Macedonia and the alleged illegal sales of arms to Iraq.

Dr. McFaul - who underscored he was speaking only as a political scientist and not on behalf of the U.S. government - said that individuals in the highest echelons of the White House believed that, if not a criminal, Mr. Kuchma is at the very least guilty of not being candid and forthright. He also said the fact that there had been no meetings between the presidents of the two countries, or even among top officials, is not an oversight.

Ukraine's standing in the West has fallen also because Russia's has risen, especially after September 11, when Russian President Vladimir Putin told Washington that he would fully support the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Since then the United States and NATO have come to view Kyiv as secondary in the region to Moscow, which has historically been the heavyweight in that part of the world. Until lately, however, Russia was still considered the enemy and not trustworthy, which forced Washington to turn to Kyiv as its strategic partner in the region.

Dr. McFaul said that no one should doubt that almost every major move in U.S.-Ukraine relations was taken with Moscow as a central aspect of the action or the consequence, including support for Ukraine's independence and democracy, and Ukraine's nuclear disarmament.

The Stanford University professor said Ukraine missed its golden opportunity in the mid- and late 1990s, when it could have made a much quicker move into NATO.

"The May 23 decision, had it been made in 1995, would have been a major breakthrough foreign policy event," said Dr. McFaul.

He explained that while Ukraine's recent, mostly unexpected declaration - made only months before the expected extension of invitations to other countries to join NATO, which is scheduled to take place during the Prague Summit - had forced NATO to reconsider the possibilities and scenarios. It also had irritated, rather than pleased, some NATO leaders.

"As you well know, many people don't like unexpected guests after the party has already been planned," said Dr. McFaul.

He explained that he doesn't believe Ukraine will be asked to join NATO or get much attention overall at the Prague Summit, although he underscored that the announcement "put Ukraine back on the radar screen" and therefore was an astute move by Kyiv.

| Home Page |