August 1, 2019

HR 3047: interim alternative to NATO for Ukraine

More

In what is perhaps the single most important action by the United States since the recognition of Ukraine in 1992, HR 3047, titled the U.S.-Ukraine Security Cooperation Enhancement Act, has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill’s purpose is “To provide support to Ukraine to defend its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and for other purposes.” Most Importantly, HR 3047 goes on to declare in unequivocal terms that “Ukraine shall be treated as a major-non-NATO ally.” 

The act was introduced on May 30 by Rep. Michael McFaul (R-Texas) and co-sponsored by Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. The following representatives have joined as co-sponsors of the bill: William Keating (D-Mass.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Robert J. Aderholt (R-Ala.), Timothy Walberg (R-Mich.), Greg Pence (R-Ind.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) and Mullin Markwayne (R-Okla.).

The bill is receiving strong bipartisan support, as has been the case for most legislation on Capitol Hill pertaining to Ukraine’s sovereignty, defense and assistance. In 2014 a similar bill was introduced in Congress to name Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as major allies, but it was dropped following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea – yet another example of timidity in the face of adversity.

Once passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, HR 3047 will grant Ukraine “Major non-NATO ally” (MNNA) status enjoyed by other non-NATO friends of the United States like Australia, Japan and South Korea, to name but a few. The State Department has reportedly taken a favorable position on the legislation. It should be noted that the bill as submitted in the form of HR 3047 is a “final” bill and not a “draft,” as reported by some news sources. Of course, bills submitted in both houses of Congress for enactment may be modified or amended before passage, although that does not always happen, especially where there is broad bipartisan support.

Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act, a country’s status as an MNNA of the United States comes with many important benefits to the recipient country. These benefits include: priority delivery of military weapons and supplies (both offensive and defensive); participation in weapons research and development projects with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD); possession of war reserve stockpiles of U.S. Defense Department weapons and supplies in the host country; access to U.S. financing of weapons purchasing; expedited export processing of space technology; and, the right to bid on DoD contracts for building and maintaining U.S. and mutual weapons systems. The benefits of major non-NATO ally status are more delineated under U.S. law than in NATO treaty obligations, albeit without NATO’s formal Article 5 commitment (mutual assistance in the face of aggression).

The special status conferred on a major non-NATO ally of the United States dates back to 1989 when the so-called Nunn Amendment was enacted, authorizing the secretary of defense with the concurrence of the secretary of state to designate key military allies as non-NATO allies. The first countries to be so designated by President George H.W. Bush were Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan and South Korea. In 1996, major non-NATO allies received additional benefits when they were excluded from compliance with the Arms Export Control Act, the same as NATO countries. 

Since then, three countries were added under President Bill Clinton (Jordan, New Zealand and Argentina); seven countries by President George W. Bush (Bahrain, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Kuwait, Morocco and Pakistan); two by President Barack Obama (Afghanistan and Tunisia) and one to date by President Donald Trump (Brazil). A surprising number of these designations have followed visits by foreign leaders with the U.S. president at the time. 

In March of this year, during White House meetings with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian leader expressed the desire to purchase U.S. weapons systems. Afterwards, President Trump announced his intention to name Brazil a major non-NATO ally of the U.S., which he did on May 9. Also, last month Sen. John Cornyn added an amendment to the 2020 Defense Authorization Act that will assure India’s designation as an MNNA. 

Being named a major non-NATO ally of the United States should be the most important foreign policy objective of the Zelenskyy administration with respect to the United States; it should be raised as a priority issue during any upcoming meetings with President Trump. At the same time, the Ukrainian American diaspora needs to encourage and lobby members of the House of Representatives to co-sponsor and support passage of HR 3047, and to urge their senators to introduce a companion bill in the Senate. 

Ukraine’s designation as a major non-NATO ally is equally important to the United States and its strategic interests in Europe – especially, in dealing with Russia. Ukraine’s recent presidential election, with a 62 percent voter turnout, was closely monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international observers, with both rounds having been undisputedly found to be “fair and democratic elections.” The same was true of the more recent parliamentary elections. Ukraine is at the top of the former republics of the Soviet Union in electoral democracy. Since the break-up of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine has had six presidents as compared to two for Russia and one for Belarus. The other former republics have not fared much better.

As in the case of Israel, which remains the only democracy in the Middle East, the United States needs to support and defend the burgeoning democracy of Ukraine as a counterweight to the ever-growing malign threat from Russia. As a despot, Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely to be threatened by Ukraine’s democracy at his border as much if not more than U.S. missiles in Poland. History and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 have taught us that democracy can be contagious.

Comments are closed.