Russia, Ukraine Preferred to Part Friends
// Despite the coolness in relations, the treaty of friendship will be extended
Kommersant found out that, in spite of the numerous claims to each other, Moscow and Kiev will extend the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine for another ten years. The Russian Foreign Ministry, which has blamed the Ukrainian party for violating the “big treaty”, hopes that its prolongation will sober Ukraine’s government. The State Duma hasn’t been particularly glad at that sign of friendliness – it has once suggested that the President and the Government should consider the expediency of extending the treaty. However, it is the pro-Russian forces in the Crimea that appear to be mostly upset. They even called Moscow’s step “defeatist diplomacy”.
Passing it over
By next Wednesday Moscow and Kiev are to determine the future of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, which was signed in the Ukrainian capital on May 31, 1997. According to the document, it is automatically extended for another ten years in case neither party declares willing to terminate the agreement half a year before it expires. Since Russia and Ukraine exchanged instruments of ratification on April 1, 1999, October 1 is considered the deadline for filing an application to quit the treaty.
Russian politicians have recently debated the expediency of the big treaty’s prolongation referring to the fact that Kiev has systematically violated its provisions. For example, three months ago Russian MPs adopted a special appeal to the President and the Government, where they recommended the executive power to consider Moscow’s possible quitting the agreement. Two weeks ago the Russian Foreign office openly called the Ukrainian government’s policy “unfriendly” in its remarks on the current state of the Russia-Ukrainian relations. Kiev was reprimanded for its pro-Georgian position during the conflict in South Ossetia, its arms supplies to Georgia’s army, and accused Kiev of trampling on the rights of the Russian-speaking residents, and censured it for is NATO ambitions.
In its turn, the Ukrainian party has made accusations against Moscow on several occasions. The most notorious of them is the one of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vladimir Ogryzko, who stated that the Russian Embassy destabilizes the situation in the Crimea organizing a mass issuance of Russian passports there. Also, Mr Ogryzko criticized Russia’s attempts to impede Ukraine’s joining the North-Atlantic Alliance and said that Kiev is not going to extend the Treaty of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s deployment in Sevastopol after 2017.
However, Kommersant found out that regardless of the numerous claims, Moscow and Kiev are going to automatically extend the Treaty of friendship for another ten years. “We feel responsibility for the future of our relations,” Head of the CIS department with the Russian Foreign Ministry Victor Sorokin, who is in charge of the Ukrainian direction, told Kommersant. “We don’t mind the treaty’s wording and continue to convince our Ukrainian partners to stick to its articles. We hope that our behavior will sober the leaders of Ukraine and their further foreign policy will comply with the spirit of partnership inherent in the treaty.”
According to the information of Kommersant, Kiev is not going to declare its quitting the treaty and claims to it. According to the Secretariat of the Ukrainian President, Victor Yushchenko will decide on this matter as soon as he returns from New York, where he will participate in a UN General Assembly session. Nevertheless, Deputy Chairman of the Rada’s International Affairs Committee Leonid Kozhara assured Kommersant that the treaty will be extended without any reservations. “Certainly, the treaty’s provisions are not always fulfilled when it comes to security issues especially. For example when Ukraine determines to join NATO and applies for MPA. Russia also violates them when it pursues its policy in such organizations as the SCO and CSTO without consulting with us. However, the Russian party has more claims to Kiev,” Mr Kozhara said adding that it is politicians, rather than diplomats that bear responsibility for executing the treaty.
The Resistance
Russian MPs are far from welcoming the Foreign Ministry’s decision. Chairman of the CIS Committee Alexei Ostrovsky, who was one of the initiators of MPs’ July appeal to the Russian executive power, expressed hope that Russian diplomats will negotiate for amending the agreement after all. “If the president and the Government decided to extend the treaty, they might believe it to be sound. But the articles related to the Russian language and culture must be adjusted. I think that the wording should not “leave the space for maneuver”. They must provide for the Russian language’s use in Ukraine and other matters, which have been especially acute in the bilateral relations, including the problem of the Crimea. It will facilitate our dialogue in the future,” Mr Ostrovsky told Kommersant.
Meanwhile the information about the prolongation of the big treaty drew negative response with the pro-Russian organizations of the Crimea. So far the breakaway republic’s legislative assembly virtually defies Kiev. The conflict escalated last week as the local parliament openly called on Ukraine’s Rada to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This proposal was supported by 79 MPs out of the 90 present on that day (in total, there are 100 members in the Crimean Parliament). “We endorsed the Russian government’s actions in Georgia and urged the Rada to recognize the two Caucasian republics. And Kiev suddenly claimed that we exceeded our authority,” leader of the Presidium of the Crimean Supreme Council, head of the Russian bloc Oleg Rodivilov told Kommersant. In our view, the security in the Black sea region concerns the Republic of the Crimea.”
According to Mr Rodivilov, Russia should not have extended the agreement with Ukraine because the incumbent Ukrainian government only “speculates on friendship doing Russia harm at the same time”. “Ukraine once needed this document so that Russia would recognize its state borders. No more masks today. There is no trace of friendship, when it comes to the Russian enclave especially, which the Crimea is,” Oleg Rodivilov argues. “Now the Ukrainian elite will take advantage of this ten-year respite to keep on with their friendship with the West and form an anti-Russian community in Ukraine. But Russians always want to appear mediators. Moscow’s half-hearted political line drives me mad. I call it defeatist diplomacy.” Sergey Tsekov, First Deputy Speaker of the Crimean Parliament and head of the Russian community, agrees with Mr Rodivilov. “We spoke against the ratification of this treaty. And currently Ukraine doesn’t fulfill its provisions at all and does not protect us. Given this, why should it be extended? I will only regret it, although I will accept any decision the Russian government should take,” Mr Tsekov told Kommersant.
The heads of the Crimea’s pro-Russian unions are sure that Moscow should use the chance and raise the question of the Crimea and Sevastopol’s status before extending the treaty. “We can’t understand Moscow’s position. Our rights are trampled on, and Russia makes believe it doesn’t notice it,” complains Gennady Basov, leader of the Russian bloc Sevastopol.
Nonetheless, Moscow will have several opportunities to bring up the question of the Russia-Ukrainian treaty’s future. It will have a chance in December as NATO Foreign Ministers convene to discuss granting Ukraine MAP. The Russian Parliament and Foreign Ministry said on several occasions that it will be a switch in a track after which Moscow will develop its relations with Kiev on a different basis. “Getting MAP is quite a ground to continue the discussion about terminating the treaty,” Deputy Chairman of the State Duma CIS Committee Konstantin Zatulin believes. According to him, Moscow’s reaction to the Ukrainian government’s recent steps should have been harsher. And the reason for Russia’s emollient position is connected with the international state of affairs and the consequences of the war in Georgia. “Apparently, the government thinks that it should not make foreign policy problems multiple breaking off the treaty with Kiev. Even Lenin put aside his favorite slogan “All power to the Soviets!” when it was politically motivated. So, we must pause too, till Ukraine decides on its political future. If it really intends to become NATO member, breaking off the treaty is inevitable. If struggle is not over, we should not let our adversaries have advantage. Rather, we should wait till they make a fatal mistake and get vulnerable.”
In case Ukraine doesn’t receive MAP by the end of this year, the next fatal date will be 2017 – at that time the Treaty of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s deployment in Sevastopol expires. But provided that Victor Yushchenko and the Ukrainian Foreign Office stated that Kiev will not let Russian ships stay on the Ukrainian territory after 2017 – and they are even going to shove a corresponding bill through the legislature. It seems 2017 is going to be the year of the big treaty’s viability test.
Vladimir Solovyov, Simferopol – Sevastopol
All the Article in Russian as of Sep. 23, 2008
|
