PERSPECTIVES: The empire strikes back, again and again (01/29/06)

PERSPECTIVES

by Andrew Fedynsky

The empire strikes back, again and again

Early New Year's Day with the continent in deep freeze, the Russian energy monopoly, Gazprom, ordered the shutoff of Ukraine's share of natural gas flowing through the giant pipelines that supply much of Europe. Making its demand in the dead of winter, Russia gave Ukraine 10 days to comply. With tension building in the waning hours of 2005, President Vladimir Putin put his personal stamp on the crisis, appearing dramatically on live television with a final pitch. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko did his own live broadcast, assuring Ukrainians he would neither accept Gazprom's coercion nor allow anyone in his country to freeze. As it happened, people in Central and Western Europe were the first to suffer from the cold.

Sitting in our cozy family room near the cold shores of Lake Erie, my wife and I watched it all unfold on television - the second winter in a row that a crisis in Ukraine led the evening news. And just as with the Orange Revolution a year before, President Putin lost the public relations battle. You could tell Ukraine was winning when the energy commissioner for the European Union, Andris Piebalgs, appeared on TV wearing an orange tie. It didn't matter what he said; the tie said it all: "Russia - back off and start acting like a civilized country!"

And so, with a face-saving agreement, Mr. Putin did back off, roundly condemned in the global press for "imperial over-reach" and lampooned for "shooting himself in the foot." Still, if Mr. Putin was weakened by the crisis he himself provoked, then so was Mr. Yushchenko, whose political opponents are using the energy crisis to angle for tactical advantage in the coming parliamentary election.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. It's more than 14 years that Ukraine has been independent and over a decade since Kyiv agreed to destroy the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, arguably making the greatest contribution to global security of any nation in history.

The geo-strategic significance of that 1994 decision becomes more apparent each day that the United States, Russia, the European Union, China and the International Atomic Energy Agency struggle unsuccessfully to stop nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran. Should either country or both join the exclusive "nuclear club," the result would be enormously destabilizing.

Iran and North Korea insist, of course, that they're developing a civilian nuclear program; in Iran's case, preparing for the day when its oil fields are depleted. Never mind that the same technology used to enrich nuclear fuel for civilian power plants can be applied to nuclear bombs.

In an effort to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program, the U.S., playing "bad cop," threatens U.N. Security Council action, while "good cop" Russia offers to provide the enriched uranium Iran would need to run a civilian nuclear energy program.

I have no affection for Iran or North Korea, and I applaud efforts to try to stop them from developing nuclear arms. That said, I'm deeply troubled by Russia's role in this crisis and question whether that country has any credibility at all, given how it's repeatedly provoked crises with Ukraine, something that directly contravenes its international obligations.

Indeed, in 1994, when Ukraine agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons, Russia, the United States and Great Britain co-signed the Budapest Memorandum, forbidding economic coercion aimed at subverting Ukraine's sovereignty or any attacks or threats that might jeopardize Ukraine's territorial integrity or political independence. Included is Russia's agreement to supply Ukraine with enriched uranium for the four operating nuclear generating plants that supply half the country's electricity production. Now Moscow is offering Iran a similar arrangement.

Well, the Budapest Memorandum notwithstanding, ever since Mr. Putin assumed power in 2000, Russia has been working to undermine Ukraine's independence. Notoriously, this has included open interference in Ukraine's presidential election; encroachments on Ukrainian territory in the Kerch Straits and in the Crimea; and, of course, the most recent demand for a devastating price increase, which President Putin's economic adviser Andrei Illarionov blasted as a "political neo-imperialist move" and then resigned in protest. "Energy weapons are being used against neighbors," he said.

No one should be surprised, I suppose, when Russia violates a treaty. Lenin violated the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk guaranteeing Ukraine's independence during the era of the Central Rada. Stalin's Terror and Famine-Genocide in the 1930s violated the constitutional principles that established and were supposed to govern the Soviet Union. In 1948 the Kremlin violated post-World War II agreements with the Allies when it imposed the Berlin Blockade; Brezhnev and his successors violated the Helsinki Accords in the 1970s and 1980s.

To their credit, the United States and European countries have been honoring the international commitment to Ukraine with their pivotal role in setting up an independent banking system, a viable currency and, of course, during the Orange Revolution and the gas crisis. Now, given Russia's unequivocal campaign to reincorporate Ukraine into its empire, it's imperative that the West step up its support for Ukraine, including assistance in achieving energy independence through development of domestic fossil fuels, nuclear fuel enrichment, bio-energy and other renewables. That's one of the primary goals President Yushchenko set in his national address on the energy crisis.

As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with historic links to Iran and North Korea, Russia has potential leverage in the dispute over their nuclear programs. Regardless of that, the West, having provided guarantees on Ukraine's independence and sovereignty, must be firm in rejecting any effort to link the current nuclear crisis with Russia's imperial ambitions in Ukraine. Ultimately, nothing will have been gained if Russia helps in the short term with Iran and North Korea, while evading its long-term obligations under the Budapest Memorandum. Proud of its status as a member of the G-8, Russia insists on being treated like a normal country. Fair enough. In return, the U.S. and the European Union should insist its president act like a normal leader.

Andrew Fedynsky's e-mail address is: fedynsky@stratos.net.

| Home Page |